Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment, on 6th June, for the Whitsuntide Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Harrogate Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

Sunderland Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Great Western Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],

London and North Eastern Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],

London, Midland and Scottish Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],

Southern Railway (Dock Charges) Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

MOHAMMEDAN JUDGES.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state in which of the High Courts of India there is a Mohammedan judge and in which there is not?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): There is one Mohammedan judge in the Calcutta, Bombay, Allahabad and Lahore High Courts respectively, and none in the High Courts at Madras, Patna and Rangoon.

Sir C. YATE: Will the Under-Secretary take into consideration the appointment of Mohammedan judges?

Mr. RICHARDS: I will mention that to my Noble Friend (Lord Olivier).

INDIA COUNCIL (ARMY REPRESENTATIVE).

Sir C. YATE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary for India if he will state for how long there has been no representative of the Indian Army on the India Council, and when the Secretary of State intends to appoint one?

Mr. RICHARDS: The answer to the first part is since General Sir Edmund Barrow s retirement on the 29th February last. As regards the second part, my Noble Friend is considering the question of filling the vacancy.

MEDICAL SERVICE.

Sir C. YATE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, considering the disastrous effects in Mesepotamia, of the retrenchment in hospitals establishment in the Army in India carried out in pre-War days, the India Office is prepared to sanction the proposed reduction of 1,957 beds in British and 2,041 beds in Indian station hospitals, of 15 officers of the Indian Medical Service, and 60 assistant surgeons?

Mr. RICHARDS: These reductions have been or are in process of being carried out, with the sanction of the Secretary of State where that was required. They are partly due to reductions of combatant strength, and in any case will not seriously affect the improvements introduced since the experience of Mesopotamia.

Sir C. YATE: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it safe to effect these reductions in the army in India at the present time?

Mr. RICHARDS: Yee.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many assistant-surgeons of the Indian Medical Department were dismissed during the financial year 1923–24, and how many it is proposed to dismiss during the current financial year; whether any representations have been received on this subject; and whether, in view of the very serious
unemployment among Anglo-Indians at the present time, the Government of India can take steps to avoid reduction of cadre until some of the unemployed have been able to obtain other work?

Mr. RICHARDS: A reduction of 92 assistant-surgeons has been sanctioned, including 32 who are in excess of the establishment, but it is not known how many of these were discharged in 1923–24. Certain representations on this and other matters relating to the Anglo-Indian community have been received and transmitted to the Government of India. As in the case of other services, retirements are being carried out on favourable terms, and I fear I cannot hold out hope of any exceptional measures in the case of this Department to mitigate the hardship involved in the reductions.

Mr. SIMPSON: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the unrest which exists in the Indian Medical Department, in view of the reduction of its staff; whether it is the intention of the Government of India to dispense with the services of that Department altogether; whether the Department has asked for an official inquiry into the whole matter; and whether the Government of India can see its way to institute such an inquiry?

Mr. RICHARDS: It is not intended to dispense with the Indian Medical Department. Certain representations have been received regarding the present condition of the Department. My Noble Friend awaits the Government of India's views before deciding on the request for an inquiry.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is the Under-Secretary aware that unless they wish to get rid of this service altogether recruiting will become almost impossible?

Mr. RICHARDS: I think it will be very difficult.

CIVIL SERVICE (LEE COMMISSION).

Mr. SIMPSON: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary whether the Government is taking any and, if so, what steps to carry out the recommendations contained in the Lee Commission Report; whether these recommendations require consideration by the Indian Legislature before the issue of Orders; and whether the Government
of India will be instructed to introduce the financial reforms recommended at the earliest possible date?

Mr. RICHARDS: No final orders will be passed until the Report has been discussed by the Indian Legislature in its September Session, but the necessary preliminary work is meanwhile being pressed on with all possible speed both here and in India. As regards the last part of the question, I have already stated, and the Government of India have stated in their Legislature, that any financial relief ultimately sanctioned will have effect from 1st April, 1924.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is it not the case that the Secretary of State has power, independently of the Legislative Council, to carry out the scheme proposed by the Commission?

Mr. RICHARDS: I believe that is so.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT (COMMITTEE).

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Committee appointed by the Government of India to inquire into the working of the reforms and securing remedies for difficulties which have arisen in connection therewith will report to Parliament or to the Government of India; and, if the latter, whether he will take steps to ensure that a copy of such Report shall be laid before Parliament at the earliest possible date?

Mr. RICHARDS: The Committee will report to the Government of India, and any proposals which may result from its recommendations will be those of the Government of India. Parliament will necessarily be fully informed of such proposals as His Majesty's Government decide to adopt, and I cannot at the present stage give any undertaking that the Committee's Report will be presented in advance of the decisions which may result from it.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: Can the hon. Gentleman now give the names of the unofficial members of this Committee?

Mr. RICHARDS: Not at present.

BERAR.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state if any opportunity
has been given to the people of the province of Berar to express their wishes on the letter addressed by the Nizam of Hyderabad to the Viceroy of India; whether any assurance has been given that no steps will be taken in the matter without giving such opportunity; and, if so, through what channel was this assurance conveyed, to whom was it given, and by what method is it proposed to carry the assurance into effect?

Mr. RICHARDS: An assurance was given in December, 1921, in the form of an official statement in the Central Provinces Legislative Council, that no steps in the matter of the re-transfer of Berar would be taken without giving to the people of Berar a full opportunity of expressing their wishes. No occasion for giving effect to this assurance has yet arisen.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

LAND GRANTS.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has reached a decision as to the proposal for a grant of 63,000 acres of land to a prominent settler in Kenya Colony; and whether he can take steps to ensure that henceforth no grants of land of this size will be made to a single individual?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas, who was received with cheers, on his return, after illness): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, any proposals of the kind would require the most careful consideration in every case.

Mr. HARVEY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in connection with any grants of land made in future to settlers in Kenya Colony, steps will be taken to protect the position of natives at present occupying portions of the land in question, so that they shall not be deprived of the land so occupied, or only be permitted to remain as tenants at the will of the settler to whom the estate is granted?

Mr. THOMAS: I am awaiting a report from the Governor of Kenya on the question of the position of natives outside the Reserves, and should prefer not to make a definite statement at present.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Is it not a fact that large areas of land are being advertised at the present time?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not aware of it.

PHELPS-STOKES COMMISSION (REPORT).

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR - CLIVE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the Report of the Phelps-Stokes Commission on the Kenya Colony; whether it is the intention of the Government to publish this Report; and, if so, how soon is it likely to be published?

Mr. THOMAS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Phelps-Stokes Commission is not a Government body, and it will, I assume, make its own arrangements for publishing its Report if it decide on publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA RAILWAY (ASIATIC EMPLOYES).

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any representation from the Asiatic employés on the Uganda Railway in respect of dismissals; whether, during the last year, of 2,088 such employés 368 were dismissed; what is the reason for this reduction of staff; and whether he will receive a deputation from those employés who desire to represent the injustice of the action taken against them?

Mr. THOMAS: I have received no representations of the kind, and am not aware of any dismissals of Asiatic employés having taken place. No doubt many temporary engagements have expired and in many cases have been replaced by the employment of natives of Africa, and the report of the general manager shows that in 1923 the number of Asiatic employés was reduced from 2,088 to 1,720. During that year, as compared with the previous year, the expenditure decreased by 13 per cent., while the earnings increased by 13 per cent., and I conclude that the replacement as opportunity arose of Asiatics by Africans tended to economy without sacrifice of efficiency. The responsibility for the just treatment of Colonial officials rests with the Governor, and I am confident that it is in
safe hands. As at present advised, I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose for me to receive a deputation representing such officials.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question as to whether he will receive a deputation from those employés?

Mr. THOMAS: To bring deputations such a long distance merely to be told nothing is a waste of money. I have no objection to receiving a deputation, but it would be equally unwise to incur expenditure, without being able to see any useful result.

Sir C. YATE: What steps have been taken to train African natives to fill these appointments?

Mr. THOMAS: The result is shown in the figures which I have given.

Mr. SIMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that these men have been replaced by Africans?

Mr. THOMAS: That is my information.?

Sir R. HAMILTON: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of Asiatic employés of the Uganda Railway who were retrenched last year; what compensation has been paid in respect of retrenchment; and what saving will be effected by the reduction of the Asiatic staff?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer to the reply which I have just given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool, from which it will be seen that, so far as I am aware, there have been no retrenchments in the sense of termination of the employment of permanent officials. In the case of non-renewal of temporary agreements, the question of compensation does not arise. I will inquire of the Governor as to the extent to which the large economy effected in the working of the railway is to be attributed to the reduction of Asiatic staff.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AND WEST AFRICA (COMMISSIONS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the lapse of time since
the original announcement, he can now give the names of the Commissions to visit East and West Africa, their terms of reference, and the date and plans for their visits?

Mr. THOMAS: My consideration of this matter has been unavoidably interrupted, but if my hon. Friend would repeat his question to-day week, I should hope to be able to make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (TURKISH FRONTIER CONFERENCE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position of the negotiations with the Government of the Turkish Republic on the question of the boundaries of Iraq?

Captain Viscount CURZON: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement with reference to the breakdown of the Mosul Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): As the Turkish delegate at the Conference which has been sitting at Constantinople to settle the frontier between Irak and Turkey informed the British representative at the last meeting that he was unable to consider, even in principle, the proposals put forward by His Majesty's Government, it became apparent that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging a conference without any common ground for discussion. Sir P. Cox was, therefore, instructed to inform the Turkish delegate that he had received orders to return to London, since no other course remained open to His Majesty's Government than to submit the matter to the League of Nations in accordance with Article 3 (2) of the Treaty of Lausanne. Sir P. Cox left Constantinople on the 9th instant, and, as soon as the nine months' period provided for direct negotiation by Article VII of the Evacuation Protocol has elapsed, His Majesty's Government for their part will address the League of Nations on the subject and invite that body to give a decision regarding the frontier between Turkey and Irak. In the meantime they propose to communicate with the Turkish Government on the subject.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask why we are delaying till the
full nine months are over before applying to the League? Would it not be satisfactory from every point of view to get this matter settled at the earliest moment, and why should we not apply to the League straight away?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am advised that we have to wait nine months according to the terms of the agreement, but in the meantime I am in communication with the Turkish Government, in order to smooth over any difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BESSARABIA AND DARDANELLES.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has made or will make inquiry of the British representative in Moscow as to the authenticity of a reported statement by Mr. Trotsky, which has received wide publicity in the European Press, to the effect that preparations are being made for an attack on Rumanian Bessarabia as a first step toward the seizure of Constantinople?

Sir W. de FRECE: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has- received reports as to the authenticity of speeches by Soviet leaders indicating an aggressive Russian policy with regard to the Dardanelles?

The PRIME MINISTER: An official denial of the statement in question has been issued by the Soviet Mission in London, and appeared in the daily Press of the 6th instant.

Mr. MILLS: Is the Prime Minister aware that this so-called Rumanian Bessarabia is land ceded against the wishes of a country which was allied with this country during the War?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.

ANGLO-SOVIET CONFERENCE.

Mr. HANNON: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a date has yet been fixed for the termination of the Anglo-Soviet Conference; and whether he will indicate the progress which has been made during the sittings which have taken place?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I would
refer the hon. Member to the third part of the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. A. T. Davies) on the 5th June. With regard to the second part, I can only repeat that I intend to make a full statement to the House when the negotiations have reached a stage which justifies my reporting to Parliament upon them.

Mr. HANNON: Will that statement indicate the limitation of the period of time for which the Conference is to sit?

The PRIME MINISTER: I want the Conference to have as much time as is necessary, in order to cover the very wide and complicated ground, which also necessitates that certain sections of the Conference should engage in negotiations with interests outside the Government.

Viscount CURZON: Could the Prime Minister, at any rate, give us an assurance that before the House rises in August, or whenever it does rise, we shall have a statement about this Conference?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of interests outside the Government, does he mean that negotiations are going on between those interests and the delegation with regard to pre-War debts?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very anxious that everyone should be satisfied, if a satisfactory arrangement is going to be come to at all. All the interests concerned are being consulted with a view to coming into agreement.

Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is at the head of the Russian Delegation now?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very sorry that some organs of the Press, at any rate, do not seem to try to help us. I can assure the House that no communication of any kind, either direct or indirect, has been made to me regarding the change of the head of the Delegation.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate a satisfactory termination of the negotiations?

AGENTS (PERMISSION TO LAND).

Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether permission has been, or is to be, granted by His
Majesty's Government for certain Russian agents, belonging to a Russian Mission expelled from Germany, to land in this country, and, if so, whether he is prepared to make any statement with reference to this matter?

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Is there any special feature of urgency about this question, owing to which it should not be put upon the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not yet a quarter to four.

The PRIME MINISTER: No application such as that indicated in the question has been received by the Government.

Colonel GRETTON: Will it be necessary, if any addition is to be made to the Russian Mission, that application should be made to His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have heard no suggestion that the Russian Missio'n is to be added to.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (ARMS IMPORTATION EMBARGO).

Mr. HANNON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the present embargo upon the importation of arms into China; and whether, seeing that it operates in favour of those countries which do not strictly observe the terms of the agreement prohibiting this trade, he will consider the desirability of modifying the agreement so that British manufacturers may have the opportunity of tendering for Chinese armament contracts?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government attach great importance to the arms embargo agreement, and, in order to secure that it shall be effectively and uniformly applied, are endeavouring to expedite the replacement of the existing agreement by a modified form which was proposed at the Washington Conference and elaborated by the Diplomatic Representatives at Peking. If the hon. Member is aware of any recent tenders by foreign manufacturers for the supply of arms to China, I should be glad to have particulars.

Mr. HANNON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that foreign countries are sending arms into China now?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the hon. Member will gather that from the form of my reply. The important thing is that, in case he has any information as to specific cases, I shall be exceedingly obliged if he will send it to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS (RECOGNITION).

Mr. HANNON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which are the countries whose Governments have received de jure recognition by His Majesty's Government, but whose representatives in this country are not accorded full diplomatic recognition; and what are the reasons for this procedure in each case?

The PRIME MINISTER: The only case is that of Lithuania, whose representative in this country has not been accorded full diplomatic recognition pending the ratification of the Memel Convention by the Lithuanian Government.

Mr. HANNON: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is possible to facilitate the conduct of the matter of the recognition of Lithuania?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very anxious that there should be no delay. The fault is not with the Foreign Office here.

Oral Answers to Questions — CADETS (FEES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 21.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has yet reached a decision with regard to fees at present paid for cadets under training for the Royal Navy. His Majesty's Army, and the Royal Air Force; and whether he proposes to widen the field of selection of officers for His Majesty's Forces by abolishing these fees, as in the case of the American and Japanese forces?

The PRIME MINISTER: Substantial progress has been made during the Recess in the consideration of this question by the Departments concerned, but I regret that I am not in a position at the moment to announce a final decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFFIC, UNITED STATES.

Commander BELLAIRS: 22.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that Lieut.-Colonel Sir Brodrick Hartwell, Baronet, is using His Majesty's mails for the fifth occasion for the purpose of raising money to sell alcoholic liquors off the coast of the United States, whether he can now announce what steps the Government propose to take; and whether they have considered if similar action can he taken, as in the case of Mr. Edgar Speyer, who was deprived of the baronetcy and privy councillorship which ho had held?

The PRIME MINISTER: As has been stated on several occasions in this House, the question of measures for the suppression of activities such as those of Sir Brodrick Hartwell was carefully gone into last year. Special legislation would be necessary before His Majesty's Government could intervene in cases of this kind, but it was found extremely difficult to frame suitable legislation without imposing restrictions which would seriously hamper legitimate trade. The matter is, however, receiving further consideration by the Departments concerned. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, a Treaty has been concluded with the United States, as a result of which it is hoped that the United States Government maybe enabled effectually to deal with the smuggling of liquor. With regard to the second part of the question, it is not the fact that Sir Edgar Speyer was deprived of his baronetcy. He was deprived of his Privy Councillorship on being denaturalised.

Mr. HOPE: Are the profits of this industry assessable under Schedule D, or are they to be regarded as capital?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Has the Prime Minister considered that, by some alteration in the bond into which the exporters enter, it would be possible, without any legislation, to put a stop to a good deal of this traffic?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not an affair of the Foreign Office, but I am sure that the Departments concerned will take note of what he has said.

Mr. JONES: If it is not an affair of the Foreign Office, is it not an affair of the Prime Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Sir W. de FRECE: 24.
asked the Prime Minister whether the result of the negotiations with Zaghloul Pasha will be submitted to the House for its approval before any official British sanction is given to it; and whether it is the policy of the Government to retain its holding of the Suez Canal shares?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the last sentence of my reply to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) on 25th February last. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTAL FACILITIES.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 28.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the desirability of appointing a committee to consider whether the reduction of postal facilities now being carried out throughout the entire country is in the public interest, and what alterations should be introduced to meet the complaints which are now being generally made without result?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): I have been asked to reply to this question. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that a reduction of postal facilities is now being carried out throughout the country. On the contrary, efforts are being made to effect improvements.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British delegates to the International Labour Conference at Geneva in June will be specially instructed to propose any specific international legislation; and, if so, of what nature?

The PRIME MINISTER: It will be the duty of the delegates of the countries represented to consider jointly the question whether the time is ripe for the adoption of a draft Convention in respect of the matters on the Agenda.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Has the Agenda been published?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (INTERPRETATION OF TREATY).

Viscount CURZON: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received representations from the Government of the Irish Free State to the effect that, as stated by the Free State Attorney-General, no question as to the interpretation of the Treaty has or can be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and whether any change in the proposed procedure is contemplated?

Mr. THOMAS: The reply to both these questions is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT (AUTUMN SESSION).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the present intention of the Government to hold an Autumn Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the present state of public business, the Government cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible to dispense with an Autumn Session.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: If the Autumn Session should not be reached, has the Prime Minister any idea of the date of the General Election?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am perfectly certain that the Autumn Session will be reached.

Mr. PRINGLE: In view of the fact that an Autumn Session is now inevitable, will the Prime Minister make arrangements for the rising of the House as early RS possible?

The PRIME MINISTER: My experience in this House is that it is not the Government who are responsible for these dates, but those who have less sympathy with Government business than the Government have themselves.

Mr. PRINGLE: Has it not been the policy of the Labour party to advocate the rising of the House on the 31st July,
and will the right hon. Gentleman, now that he is Prime Minister, see that that is carried out?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be very glad to enter into an arrangement with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ADMIRALTY YACHT "ENCHANTRESS."

Mr. LAMBERT: 48.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what action has been taken to carry out the recommendation of the Geddes Committee of 14th December, 1921, that the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" should be disposed of; and what has been the total cost to the public funds of this ship since that date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The answer to the first part of the question was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford on the 4th June. The total gross amount spent on the ship since she was paid off on the 31st March, 1922, is £817, the bulk of which was incurred in the work of de-storing her and making her ready for laying up.

WIDOWS' AND DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.

Major COHEN: 49 and 50.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst ex-service men regarding the rates of pension laid down for the widows of officers from the rank of lieutenant downwards and the widows of other ratings; and whether he is prepared to consider increasing the pensions laid down, in accordance with the representations made by the British Legion In the 20th March, 1924;
(2) whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst ex-service officers and other ratings discharged since the official termination of the War, and the dependants of officers and other ratings killed since that date, because they have no right of appeal against decisions of the Admiralty in connection with their claims for pension; and whether lie is prepared to accede to the request, made by the British Legion on the 20th March, 1924, to extend to such officers, other ratings, and dependants the same right of appeal to the House of Lords independent tribunal as is enjoyed by the Great War applicants?

Mr. AMMON: I am, of course, aware of the representations made by the British Legion on both matters. The question is still under consideration in conjunction with the War Office and the Air Ministry, which Departments would be involved in any revision of the post-War scales or conditions, and I hope that it will be possible to communicate the decision to the British Legion at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND (RAILWAY EXTENSION).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Departmental Committee on Railway Extension in Nyasaland has yet reported; and when their Report will be published?

Mr. THOMAS: The Committee has not yet reported. As I have already stated, I will consider the question of the publication of the Report when I have received it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the new railways contemplated, but not actually commenced, in East Africa; whether in all these cases tenders are being called, or will be called, for their construction from independent firms of standing; and whether, in view of the expenditure of public money, he will, in the interest of economy and, efficiency, adopt this course?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hull on the Sth of May.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

WAITRESSES (WAGES).

Mr. BAKER: 36.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that waitresses employed at the British Empire Exhibition receive wages of only 15s. per week; whether he has taken any steps to inquire into this; whether the British Government, as a financial guarantor, approves
of such low wages; what executive action he proposes to take; and whether he will take it without any further delay?

Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the rest of the question, I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 4th June, in answer to a question asked by the hon. and learned Member for the Bassetlaw Division of Nottinghamshire.

Mr. PRINGLE: Has anything resulted in view of the steps the hon. Gentleman has taken?

Mr. LUNN: I cannot say anything has resulted since I answered the various questions put to me on that day.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that control over these servants is a matter not for the administration of the exhibition, but for the contractor?

Mr. MILLS: Is this firm of caterers, which appears to have a monopoly at the exhibition, the one that refuses to be represented at any negotiations between employers and workpeople, and, having regard to that fact, is there no possibility of terminating the contract?

Mr. LUNN: This is not the only firm that objects to take part in a works council.

Sir C. YATE: Is not 15s. a week more than is usually paid to waitresses?

Mr. SANDEMAN: Has any inquiry been made into the tips these girls take?

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Are tips included, and to how much do they amount?

Mr. LUNN: As I said on the previous occasion, I have not gone into the question of the dispute. If a dispute arise upon these matters it is a question for the Minister of Labour.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Do some of these ladies get £4 a week in tips?

OLD AGE PENSIONERS.

Mr. VIANT: 37.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will ask the Executive Committee of the British Empire Exhibition to make the concession to old age pensioners of free admission to the exhibition?

Mr. LUNN: I have communicated my hon. Friend's suggestion to the British Empire Exhibition authorities. They regret that they are unable to make the proposed concession in view of the precedent which it would establish.

RODEO PERFORMANCES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to performances at Wembley known as Rodeo; if he is aware of the allegations of cruelty to the animals used in the performance on Saturday last, and that that part of the performance which caused public resentment is now to be performed in private; and whether he has instructed the police authorities to be present when the private performance of what is known as steer-roping takes place, with a view to initiating prosecutions of cruelty should any occasions of cruelty come to their notice.

The SECRETARY OF STATE for HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): In the time available since I received notice of this question I have not been able to obtain full information, but I understand that it is the intention of the exhibition authorities to secure facilities for the attendance of police at any private performance of the kind referred to. In these circumstances it may be taken for granted that police will be present, and will carry out their duties if action is necessary.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is meant by a "private performance" of this kind?

Lady TERRINGTON: I do not know whether I am in order, but may I say that on 3rd April I received a definite assurance from the promoters of the Rodeo that in the show which is given at Wembley no cruelty would be involved to the animals engaged. I maintain that there is cruelty, and I would like to know whether this performance in private should be allowed by the Government at all.

Mr. HENDERSON: As I have said, I have received only short notice of the question. I do not quite know what the performance is, but the police will be there, and I have already said that if in their opinion there is anything in the
nature of cruelty they are prepared to take the necessary action.

Mr. W. THORNE: Would it not be as well for Members of Parliament to visit the exhibition and see the show for themselves?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he can arrange for an inspection to take place of the animals by duly qualified inspectors after the performances?

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would not be advisable to send the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) to represent the patient oxen?

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks these steers enjoy having their legs broken and whether he calls that. cruelty?

Mr. HENDERSON: It is quite true that in the performances that have already taken place one animal had its leg broken. But I am not going to judge the matter by what might have been a mere accident, any more than I would condemn Rugby or Association Football because one of the players happened to break his leg. I have already said that we have arranged for the police to be present, and if, in the opinion of the authorities, cruelty is really being practised, proceedings will be taken. Moreover I believe that the Society that does such splendid work for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has already instituted proceedings.

Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that the Government view of cruelty to animals is based on the analogy of football?

Mr. B. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many fatal accidents—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now debate the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISH (PRICES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the low prices received by fishermen for their catch and the high prices charged by the
retailer to the consumer for fish in many cases; and whether he will set up a committee on the lines of the Linlithgow Committee to investigate the matter?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. N. Buxton): The question raised has been under consideration for a long time past, but I do not think that any inquiry would add to the knowledge already in my possession, or would be the means of discovering a remedy. A very considerable discrepancy between the wholesale and retail prices of fish is due to its perishable nature and the fluctuations in supply.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman sees no prospect of doing anything at all in the legislative field to remedy this?

Mr. BUXTON: That would go beyond the question. The information in my possession does not justify a Treasury inquiry. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will furnish me with more.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS ACT, 1923.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, with reference to the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, what is the method of valuation of farms for the purpose of mortgages under the Bill; whether local valuers are being appointed; and, if so, by whom?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): Valuations are made by the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue through their district valuers in the respective areas where the properties to be valued are situate.

Mr. ROYCE: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is very considerable delay after the valuation has been made, and that many complaints have been made in consequence?

Mr. GRAHAM: If my hon. Friend will let me have cases, I will do my best to hurry matters up, but some inquiry is involved in a consideration of this kind.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Major CHURCH: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many meetings have
been held of the Advisory Committee appointed by him to investigate the problem of foot-and-mouth disease; and if he is in a position to supply the House with information arising from the deliberations of the Committee?

Mr. BUXTON: I assume my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the Scientific Committee. This Committee has met twice, and there has been a meeting of a Sub-Committee. Much of the work of the Committee must, however, necessarily be done in other ways than by Committee meetings. Arrangements have been made for supplies of virus and for investigations on small animals at several laboratories under the direction of the Committee. An experimental station for investigations on farm animals has been approved by the Committee and plans are being drawn up for its equipment. The necessary work is not expected to take long to complete. I may add that the Committee does not desire to restrict laboratory investigations to persons working under its direction and it has, therefore, drawn up Regulations under which investigations by independent researchers may be conducted. These Regulations are designed to remove any risk of infection, and it is not in any case proposed to permit investigations upon farm animals except under the immediate direction of the Committee.

CANADIAN CATTLE.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the number of store cattle imported from Canada during the last 12 months into Great Britain and the number of all cattle slaughtered in Great Britain during the same period on account of foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr. BUXTON: 26,263 store cattle were imported from Canada during the 12 months from June, 1923, to May, 1924 (inclusive), and 104,660 cattle of all kinds were slaughtered during the same period on account of foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr. ROYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps by which Canadian cattle may be admitted to this country on the same conditions as cattle from other parts of the Empire?

Mr. BUXTON: I think that is to be the subject of another question.

Major WHELER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures at all of the cost of bringing the cattle over here?

Mr. BUXTON: I should like to give the answer accurately. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PATENT MEDICINES.

Mr. BAKER: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in the interests of the health of the community and as Rome return for the heavy taxation imposed in the form of medicine duty, he will introduce legislation to enable patent medicines to be sold under licences only issuable after an impartial examination of the merits of the proprietary articles?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): My right hon. Friend fears that in the present state of Parliamentary business it would be impracticable to attempt legislation on the subject this Session.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the Therapeutic Substances Bill, which has been introduced?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It has come from another place.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL RELIEF, ISLINGTON.

Mr. CLUSE: 46.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received an application from the board of guardians for the parish of St. Mary, Islington, London, N., asking for sanction to close the Liverpool Road Dispensary, where poor persons from Nos. 3a, 6, 7, 9 and 10 relief districts receive medical relief, and to compel the sick poor to attend the Highbury Dispensary for treatment and medicine; whether, seeing that the population of Islington is 330,737, and that one dispensary is inadequate for the needs of the sick poor of that parish, he will make full inquiries before sanctioning the request; and if, in the opinion of his medical advisers, it is found that the present dispensary accommodation is inadequate, he will take steps to ensure that due provision is made for treating the sick poor in Islington?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend is in communication with the guardians in regard to this proposal, and the application will be carefully considered from the point of view mentioned in the latter part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING SITES, GLASGOW.

Mr. HARDIE: 47.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Glasgow Corporation has to pay for sites as follows: £8,000 for 20 acres at 13algray, £9,196 for 9½ acres at Mosside Road, and £6,296 for 6½ acres at Langlands Road for the erection of houses; and what steps he proposes to take through his housing scheme to curb these excessive demands?

Mr. GRAHAM: My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has asked me to answer this question on his behalf. I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the question. If the local authority were of opinion that the prices asked for these sites were excessive, it was open to them to acquire them compulsorily and to have the price determined by the Official Arbiter in terms of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZINC CONCENTRATES.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the tonnage of zinc concentrates which the British Government have taken under contracts with the Zinc Producers' Association Proprietary, Limited?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): 1,298,489 tons of zinc concentrates (including slime concentrates) have been delivered to the British Government under the contract with the Zinc Producers' Association Proprietary, Limited.

Sir F. WISE: Are the prospects better for this year than last year?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I believe there is very little change in the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEA HARVEST, ESSEX.

Mr. S. ROBINSON: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that
a very large acreage of picking peas for the London markets is grown in the county of Essex; and, in view of the fact that the peas will be ready for picking continuously during June and July, and that there is sonic danger of this food being lost to the community owing to the lack of pickers, whether he will take such steps as to call the attention of the local unemployment bureaux of the necessity of diverting as much unemployed labour as is available into this channel?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): I am aware that this seasonal demand for labour will arise shortly. The necessary steps have been taken to bring the opportunities to the notice of unemployed persons in the various districts.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: Cannot some control of the living conditions of these workers be taken into consideration?

Mr. SHAW: I am aware that there were some complaints last year, and my Department will take into account the conditions, when making recommendations to persons who seek work.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.

Mr. E. HARVEY: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give an estimate of the cost to the National Exchequer and the local authorities if the school-leaving age were raised to 15?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): As the reply is long, and contains figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any opposition from any of the local education authorities in regard to raising the leaving age of school children?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I have had no communication yet.

Sir C. YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any objections from the non-education authorities?

The answer is as follows

If pupils were required, after completing the term in which they attain the age of 14, to stay at the public elementary school for another year, it is estimated that this would cause an addition of 450,000 to the average attendance, and that, including the pupils of that age already in school, there would be 540,000 such pupils on the registers. The number of additional pupils who could probably be accommodated in the schools as they are now, without new buildings, would not be large and could only be ascertained by special investigation; but it would not be practicable to provide the necessary number of new school places within a short time, and any attempt to do so would tend to increase the cost of school building. A hypothetical estimate based on the assumption that so large an operation could be carried out at present rates of cost would be misleading. The present cost of building public elementary schools may be put at about £30 a school place, involving loan charges of about £2 per annum. The annual cost of instruction may be reckoned at the present average at about £11 per head. The cost, therefore, of providing for additional pupils between the ages of 14 and 15 would be about £13 per head. Under the present grant system the charges are divided between grants and rates, on an average for the whole country in the proportion of 56 per cent. falling on grants and 44 per cent. falling on rates. Taking the cost of an additional unit of average attendance at about £7 5s. would fall on grants and £5 15s. on rates. Maintenance allowances at 5s. a week for 40 weeks in the year would add per annum to these figures. Under the present grant system the cost of maintenance allowances in public elementary schools, on the average of the whole country, falls as to about 30 per cent. on grants and 70 per cent. on rates; so that an expenditure of £10 on that object would be met as to £3 from grants and £7 from rates.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWEEPSTAKES AND DRAWS.

Viscount CURZON: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he took with reference to the recent Derby draws advertised in a daily paper of the 4th June, of which particulars were sent to him; and
whether any action was taken in respect of the paper which advertised such draws?

Mr. HENDERSON: So far as I am aware, no proceedings were taken by the police in respect of the draws in question, and I do not know whether tickets had been offered to the public. My attention was not called to the matter until after the draws had taken place. I know of no case where a newspaper has been prosecuted for merely publishing the result of a draw.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that exactly the same treatment was meted out in this case as in the case of the Otley sweep?

Mr. HENDERSON: The same treatment has been meted out where I was made aware of the draw before the draw took place.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING TAXATION, UNITED STATES.

Sir F. WISE: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the position in regard to the non-taxation by the United States of America of ships of those countries which were willing to extend reciprocal exemption of taxation of the United States ships; and if any other countries besides ourselves have accepted it?

Mr. GRAHAM: I understand that exemption from Income Tax is granted by the United States of America under the provisions of Section 213 (8) of the Revenue Act, 1921, in respect of shipping of the following countries, which either impose no Income Tax or grant a reciprocal exemption, namely

Argentine Republic. 
Bulgaria.
Denmark.
Egypt.
Iceland.
Netherlands.
Norway.
Paraguay.
Persia.
St. Lucia.
Siam,
Sweden.
Venezuela.

Negotiations in respect of the reciprocal exemption from Income Tax of British and United States shipping are still proceeding.

Sir F. WISE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this is likely to come into force at an early date?

Mr. GRAHAM: I think I should hold out false hopes if I indicated anything of the kind. I am afraid that the negotiations will take a little longer than we expected.

Sir F. WISE: As the offer was made in America and passed by this House, surely it could come into force at once.

Mr. GRAHAM: It is impossible in reply to a question to go into details, but there are other considerations that have to be taken into account, and these I shall be glad to explain personally to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE FACILITIES AND EXPORT CREDITS.

Sir F. WISE: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount, to date, guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act and the Export Credits Act?

Mr. GRAHAM: The total amount of loans guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts up to the 12th June is £46,164,145; the total amount of bills guaranteed under the Export Credits Scheme up to the 9th June is £8,223,772.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does the figure of £8,000,000 include, all the guarantees which have been given and have expired, or does it only mean the amount now in operation?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have no doubt that this is the total sum which has been guaranteed under this scheme.

Mr. VIVIAN: Does the hon. Gentleman contemplate issuing, in some readily accessible form, a statement showing the results of the various enterprises in which this House is interested through these guarantees?

Mr. GRAHAM: My hon. Friend must know that under the Trade Facilities Act there is already a regular return, and I should think that on the other point, more or less, there is complete information.

Mr. VIVIAN: Showing the results as to profit and loss?

Mr. GRAHAM: As regards the Trade Facilities Act, I think the best reply is that in only one case so far, and that for less than £4,000, has there been any call upon the guarantee, and that is out of a total of £46,000,000 guaranteed.

Captain BRASS: How much has been guaranteed under the present Government?

Mr. GRAHAM: As regards the Trade Facilities Act, I think I am safe in saying that £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 of guarantees have taken place within recent weeks.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Has any guarantee been given for Russian business under this Act?

Mr. LORIMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the smallest amount which has been offered to one individual firm?

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot give that without notice, but if the intention of the question is to turn to the smaller people, I may say that there are many small sums guaranteed of a few thousand pounds.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, GRETNA.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the waste and ruin of Government property and stores taking place on the Government estate at Gretna; whether he will state the estimated value of the stores and fittings at the date of the decision to dispose of the property; what sums have been received for stores sold; and what is the estimated value of the stores still on hand?

Mr. GRAHAM: As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I am advised that all reasonable steps to conserve Government property and stores at Gretna have been taken. It was necessary to burn certain buildings which were contaminated by highly dangerous explosives as it was impossible to sell or otherwise deal with these buildings. As regards the second and third parts of the question, the factory at Gretna was only declared surplus to War Office require-
ments in September, 1921, but sales of surplus stores had been proceeding there since the Armistice. The proceeds of sales at Gretna since the Armistice amount to approximately £2,000,000; but these sales include certain stores, e.g., railway rolling stock, which were concentrated at Gretna from other places, and it would be impossible without an examination of accounts, which in the present depleted condition of staff I am afraid I could not agree to undertake, to give exact figures for the stores pertaining to Gretna itself. The estimated value of the stores still on hand, apart from real property and fixed plant, which it is hoped to sell at auction in July, is about £200,000.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many dwelling houses are untenanted in the townships of Gretna and Eastriggs; if he is aware that these dwelling houses are falling into disrepair; if applications have been received for small holdings by the Disposal Board; and why such applications have been refused?

Mr. GRAHAM: There are at present 25 brick houses and 80 wooden bungalows vacant at Gretna, and 46 brick houses and 59 wooden bungalows at Eastriggs. I am advised that reasonable steps have been taken to prevent these houses falling into disrepair. No applications have been received for small holdings by the Disposal Board.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Could not some of these houses be let?

Mr. GRAHAM: I should be delighted to let them if my hon. Friend will help me to find tenants.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Will the hon. Member insert advertisements in the Scottish papers?

Mr. GRAHAM: All kinds of advertisements have been inserted, in order to dispose of this property or to let it, but we have been unable to do better than has been done up to the present time.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. Member aware that he cannot get these houses occupied until he makes use of the works that are going to waste there, which could be used in a hundred different ways, and is he going to take the trouble to see
those works put into operation producing something that will not only benefit the community but give the houses a chance of being let?

Mr. PALMER: Can the hon. Member tell us the rents of the houses?

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot give the rents without notice, but I do know that the rents are no higher than is usually charged in the district. As regards the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), I can only say that it is the settled policy to dispose of this property and, consequently, I am unable to suggest anything as to Government use of Gretna. An auction will be held next month in order to dispose of the property.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that millions of pounds worth of public property are going to rot and rust there, as is obvious to everybody who passes on the railway train, and can he say how long the Government are going to sit supinely by while this waste is going on?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is quite true that there is a very large amount of valuable property at this centre, but I would remind my hon. Friend that every effort has been made to dispose of the property, and an offer cannot be obtained.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. Member aware that we could use the works in making every kind of light castings materials required for houses, and that that would he more effective than any Bill imposing penalties upon those who overcharge us for building materials, and will not the Government see that that is done, instead of the works being sold?

Sir CHARLES STARMER: Will the hon. Member ask the Government to consider the question of utilising these premises for housing married soldiers and so save the spending of £400,000 in building houses at Catterick?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now go into that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOTTENHAM-WALTHAMSTOW ROAD-WIDENING.

Mr. VIANT: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can give an approximate
date upon which the widening of Broad Lane, Tottenham, to Ferry Lane, Walthamstow, will be commenced; and whether he can give any explanation of the delay?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I regret that it is not possible for me to state when this improvement can be begun. The work calls for the combined action of a number of local authorities and tramway undertakings, and the widenings present great difficulty owing to the very limited space between buildings. I am prepared to give substantial assistance towards the project and am doing all in my power to advance the negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL DYER.

Dr. HADEN GUEST: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to, the statements made by Mr. Justice McCardie during the trial of the action by Sir Michael O'Dwyer, formerly Lieut.-Governor of the Punjab, claiming damages for alleged libel against Sir Sanharan Nair, formerly member of the Executive Council of the Viceroy of India, with reference to the punishment of General Dyer by the Government of India and the Government of Great Britain; and whether, in view of the grave political and social reaction which these statements may have in India, he will order an inquiry to be made as to whether this is an abuse of privilege?

Mr. DIXEY: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime, Minister if his attention has been called to the result of a recent case in the High Court which strongly suggests that General Dyer has not been fairly dealt with by the authorities, and in view of the fact that General Dyer is seriously ill, will he consider immediately what steps can now be taken to reconsider the matter?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) is answered, will the Prime Minister say whether he is aware that the learned Judge had not got the documents in the Dyer case before him, and had not the full evidence which was in possession of the Government of India?

The PRIME MINISTER: With reference to the question of the hon. Member for North Southwark (Dr. Guest), I have heard it now for the first time. No copy of the question reached me, and it has not been left at any of the usual places. With regard to the second question, I only received notice of it at. 1 o'clock to-day, and I cannot attempt to give a considered answer at such short notice. If the hon. Member will put his question on the Paper, I will deal with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO (BRITISH AGENT).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Mexican Government have attempted to expel Mr. Cummins, British Diplomatic Agent in Mexico City; whether Mr. Cummins has refused to leave and has shut himself up in the British Legation; whether His Majesty's Government regard the action of the Mexican Government as a breach of international courtesy, and, if so, what steps His Majesty's Government are going to take?

Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to make any statement as to the state of affairs existing at the British Legation in Mexico City, and as to the causes which have led up to it, and what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take?

The PRIME MINISTER: The statements made in the question put by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) may be taken as substantially correct. For some time there has been friction between the Mexican Government and Mr. Cummins, His Majesty's Government being unable to agree that the complaints made against Mr. Cummins were justified. On the 13th May I was informed that if Mr. Cummins were not withdrawn he would be expelled on the 10th instant. I had been desirous of regularising our relations with Mexico for some time, and decided that. Sir Thomas Hohler, who had previously done good work in that country, should go out at once on a special mission and report to me. On his arrival, Mr. Cummins was to leave. On the 15th April that information was sent officially to the Mexican Government, and I trusted that matters would be allowed to rest there. The Mexican Government have, however,
not only declined to withdraw their notice of expulsion, but are, apparently, in ways reported in the Press, proceeding to carry it out. His Majesty's Government regard the action of the Mexican Government as a grave breach of international courtesy, but I am still waiting for further information, as the result of communications I have made to the Mexican Government. I can only add, at the present moment, that I informed the Mexican Government that, in the event of their taking steps against Mr. Cummins, with which His Majesty's Government did not concur, the Hohler Mission could not be proceeded with. Though Sir Thomas Hohler is due to start at once, he has not yet left.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is there at present free communication between His Majesty's Government and Mr. Cummins?

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that it is interrupted at present, though we are getting communications through.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the nature of the charges made by the Mexican Government against Mr. Cummins on account of which they desire his expulsion? There must be some reason surely.

The PRIME MINISTER: The allegations made by the. Mexican Government against Mr. Cummins amount briefly to this, that Mr. Cummins made rude communications to the Mexican Government.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Has not the friction arisen owing to Mr. Cummins' representations as to the rights of British subjects, made on the instructions of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: ; The trouble which has arisen during my term of office can be accurately described by what my right hon. Friend has just said. The latest communication which caused offence was with reference to the case of Mrs. Evans, whose property was seized by the Mexican Government.

Mr. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the rights of British subjects will not be sacrificed in any circumstances owing to a new representative being sent there?

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole idea which I had in mind was that, by
regularising our relations with the Mexican Government, we should be in a very much better position than we are at present to negotiate about those rights.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is it not impossible to carry out negotiations with any country which does not conform to the usages of civilisation?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. BALDWIN: Would the Deputy-Leader of the House please inform us how far he proposes to proceed to-night?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): We propose to ask the House to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule. Our intention was to take five Orders, but we understand it would meet the convenience of the House if, say, at 11 o'clock, the London Traffic Bill were not completed, that we should move that further con-

sideration of that Bill be adjourned and proceed with and complete the following three Orders on the Paper.

Mr. HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the China Indemnity (Application) Bill is by no means regarded as non-contentious?

Mr. CLYNES: I am aware that there is some difference of opinion on the matter, but not sufficient to keep the House very long.

Viscount CURZON: Supposing the London Traffic Bill is not finished by 11 o'clock, is it the intention of the Government to put it down on a subsequent occasion?

Mr. CLYNES: Certainly, at an early date.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this clay's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House,)"—[Mr. Clynes.]

The House divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 114.

Division No. 90.]
AYES
[3.47 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.


Alden, Percy
Hardie, George D.
Middleton, G.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Mills, J. E.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Morel, E. D.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morris, R. H.


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)


Ayles, W. H.
Hayes, John Henry
Mosley, Oswald


Baker, Walter
Hemmerde, E. G.
Muir, John W.


Barnes A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Nichol, Robert


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex,Enfield)
Paling, W.


Bonwick, A.
Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Palmer, E. T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Perry, S. F.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hudson, J. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Church, Major A. G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Phillipps, Vivian


Clarke, A.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Pilkington, R. R.


Climie, R.
Jewson, Dorothea
Ponsonby, Arthur


Cluse, W. S
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Purcell, A. A.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Raffety, F. W.


Crittall, V. G.
Kennedy, T.
Rea, W. Russell


Dukes, C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Richards, R.


Duncan, C.
Kenyon, Barnet
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)


Egan, W. H.
Lansbury, George
Romerli, H. G.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Laverack, F. J.
Rose, Frank H.


Falconer, J.
Leach, W.
Royce, William Stapleton


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lee, F
Royle, C.


Fletcher, Lieut.-Commander R. T. H.
Livingstone, A. M.
Scurr, John


Foot, Isaac
Loverseed, J. F.
Sherwood, George Henry


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Lowth, T.
Simon, E. D. (Manchester,Withington)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Lunn, William
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gosling, Harry
McCrae, Sir George
Simpson, J. Hope


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J.R.(Aberavon)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Greenall, T.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Snell, Harry


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Groves, T.
March, S.
Spence, R.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Marley, James
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Stamford, T. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Starmer, Sir Charles
Viant, S. P.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Stephen, Campbell
Vivian, H.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington)


Sturrock, J. Lung
Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, Maj. A.S.(Kent,Sevenoaks)


Terrington, Lady
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)
Windsor, Walter


Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wintringham, Margaret


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.
Wood, Major M. M (Aberdeen, C.)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Weir, L. M.



Thornton, Maxwell, R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thurtle, E.
Whiteley, W.
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Frederick Hall.


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wignall, James



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Norton-Griffiths, Sir John


Apsley, Lord
Gretton, Colonel John
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pease, William Edwin


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Frederick George


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Perkins, Colonel E. K


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Phillipson, Mabel


Berry, Sir George
Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bourne, Captain R. C.
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Brass, Captain W.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Remnant, Sir James


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hogge, James Myles
Rentoul, G. S.


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Lt.-Cot Sir P. (Chertsey)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Burman, J. B.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Huntingfield, Lord
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sinclair, Col.T.(Queen's Univ.,Belfast)


Clarry, Reginald George
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, J. O.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Lord


Cope, Major William
Lorimer, H. D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
MacDonald, R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dixey, A. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Dixon, Herbert
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Elliot, Walter E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Commander B. Eyres-Monsell and




Captain Douglas King.


Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Robert Croft Bourne, esquire, Borough of Oxford.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Sir Charles Cayzer; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Penny.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF EVICTION BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
I desire to say a very few words preliminary to the discussion of the Amendments to this Bill which have been returned from another place. As the House already knows, the Bill is of a very limited kind and, having considered the Amendments which have come from another place, the Government feel they cannot further restrict the Bill. The Government therefore will move to disagree with all the Amendments. I do not propose to deal with the Amendments at this moment, but I thought it would be for the convenience of the House to know that the intention of the Government is to take objection to each of the Amendments which have come from another place.

Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not propose to deal with the Amendments in detail at this stage. I am obliged to the hon. Member for having told us the intention of the Government and I should like to make one or two observations on the general position of these Amendments, because this is the first occasion during the current Session when Amendments have come back to us for consideration from another place. I desire to impress upon the House that it is peculiarly an occasion when it is the right and the duty of the House of Lords to take their proper share in the legislation of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is rather remarkable that the Government, who are in a minority in this House, and who have no authority at all to represent anybody in the country, should object to both Houses of Parliament taking their share in the work of legislation. I could understand a Government which was acting with the full authority of a majority of the people in this country and a majority in this House taking grave exception to alterations made in another place in legislation passed by
this House, but the position here is entirely different. We have to-day a Government which quite frankly tells us it is existing on the sufferance of another party in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] There is no doubt whatever as to that; we may read dozens of speeches made outside this House by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that they are unable to pass legislation without the consent of another party—the party sitting below the Gangway. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Therefore, I submit that in a position of that kind, when there is no Government entitled to speak with the full authority of a majority of Members of this House or a majority of the electors of this country, it is not only the right but it is the bounden duty of the House of Lords to scan carefully any legislation which may be sent up to them, having been passed by such a composite and irregular majority.
4.0 P.M.
That being so, it will be my duty, when we come to discuss the various Amendments, to ask the House to agree with the House of Lords in certain of the Amendments. As it may not be in order to do so on a particular Amendment, let me take this opportunity of calling attention to the fact that this is not the Government's Bill on the subject of evictions. The Government brought in a Bill, and if they had sent their own Bill to the House of Lords, with the full authority of a dominant Government, they might have been entitled to take this course. But they withdrew their Bill because it was so essentially bad that they dare not ask this House to pass it. Then came another Bill, which rather suffered in Standing Committee because the Government could not quite make up their minds what course to adopt. Now comes the third Bill, the Bill of the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. D. Simon) which we are now discussing. The Government, anxiously clinging to any anchor in a time of trouble and stress, clung to the hon. Member's Bill in the hope that it might be something for them from the electioneering point of view. That is the object of this Bill and the object of the Government in clinging to the lifebuoy thrown to them
by the hon. Member. But for the hon. Member's assistance, they would have had no Bill at all, and they would had to go back to the country with an admitted failure to legis-
late on this question of evictions. It is within the recollection of the House that in regard to one of these Amendments—the first that is going to be discussed—the Government themselves first voted with the House of Lords. The Government have been in two minds with regard to it. One day they accepted it, and another day they rejected it. I do not know whether the House of Lords is to be regarded as the right authority to judge between Philip Sober and Philip Drunk, but they have accepted, I believe, Philip Sober and have restored the Amendment which the Government first of all accepted. Therefore, it is essentially right that this House should consider with great care the Amendments made by the House of Lords. We intend, as part of our right and duty, to discuss these Amendments, and I hope, when we have given our reasons, that the House will at least agree with some of them and send them back saying that we are prepared to accept them.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. First of all, he said that it was a Government Bill and that the Government were in a minority, and then he went on to say that it was our Bill. The plain fact is that this is a Bill backed by the majority of the House, and it has been turned inside out by another House. When it comes to a conflict between this House and the other House, the right hon. Gentleman and his party, as we might have expected, are prepared to back the undemocratic and unrepresentative Chamber. Here, at any rate, we are on ground with which we are familiar, and, if the old battles have to be fought over again, we are quite prepared to assist in fighting them. This only shows that we are in face of a great struggle on this tenants' question, which is vital to millions of people, between the two Houses. I want, however, to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government. I will not go over the history of these Bills. One of their own Bills was defeated, one of their supporters' Bills died, for which there were reasons and counter reasons given. The only Bill which has so far emerged is the Bill of the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. Simon), though there are two other private Members' Bills also before the
House. If it be true that we are going to have a conflict with the other Chamber about this tenants' question, will not the Government consider the advisability of bringing in a reasonable, Bill backed by their own authority and which, I am perfectly certain, would have the support of many hon. Members on these benches.

Mr. STEPHEN: It has been done already.

Captain BENN: it is useless for the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) to say that it has been done already. It has not. There was only one Bill brought in by the Government, and the first Clause, as it stood, as he knows perfectly well, was unjustifiable. We need not, however, go back into that question. I only plead with the Government to take the question up seriously and to bring in a Bill which will do the right thing by the tenants who are in a difficult position and behind which we can stand a united House in any conflict with the other Chamber.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that we can discuss possible future legislation. We are here to consider a. specific point, namely, whether this House agrees with the Lords in the Amendments that have been sent down.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Motion before the House is "That the Lords. Amendments be now considered," and not whether the. House agrees with them or not. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has just made what, I think, is a very proper suggestion. He says, in effect, that this Bill is so bad that we ought not to consider the Lords Amendments at all, and, in order that we may have a proper Bill, ha appeals to the Government to withdraw this Bill and to bring in another one. Surely we are entitled to discuss that proposition.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that shall have to disallow the Government from foreshadowing any Bill at this stage.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I only want to add a word or two to the observations of the hon. and gallant. Member for Leith (Captain Benn). I would like to remind him that these Amendments are not such
an important matter as he apparently anticipates. I observe that the Lord Chancellor, in referring to these Amendments and to the Bill, said:
This is a Bill which does not amend the whole Act of 1923, but seeks to amend one part of it, and that a minor part.
Therefore, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend opposite will not think that there is any great struggle going on this afternoon about tenants' rights or any matters of that kind, because it is somewhat flattering to Members on this side of the House that the Lord Chancellor, in referring to these Amendments in another place, said that he propossd to leave absolutely intact the bulk of the legislation which has been passed in connection with rent restriction. So satisfied was he with the present situation that he does not apparently share the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who wants something great done, but he says that he proposes to leave intact the great bulk of what has been accomplishel, and, as regards this Bill and these Amendments, they are a minor part indeed. On that occasion, the Lord Chancellor—

Mr. FOOT: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in referring specifically to a Member of the other House and quoting remarks made by him in the course of the Debate, and is it open to this House to discuss the actual speeches made in the other House?

Mr. HOPE: On that point of Order. May I submit that the absolute rule preventing quotations from speeches in the House of Lords has suffered so many exceptions that it does not now remain in its pristine vigour. I understand that it is not in order to quote the utterance of anybody in another place for the purpose of replying to it, but I have heard quotations made, not for the purpose of replying to them, but for the purpose of elucidating points under discussion here.

Mr. FOOT: If these remarks are allowed, would it be in order for us to reply and discuss the views of the Lord Chancellor as expressed in another place?

Mr. SPEAKER: No; I think it is quite irregular, and indeed impossible, that we should have quotations from speeches made in another place, for the purpose of
argument here. The only exception that I know is reference to some substantial Ministerial pronouncement made in the other House. That is the only exception that can be allowed.

Sir K. WOOD: If I may respectfully say so, I regarded the statement made by a Minister in the position of the Lord Chancellor, occupying I suppose one of the highest positions in the Government, as a matter to which I might perhaps refer quite briefly in the course of this debate. I will pass at once from it, merely observing that the reference I have ventured to make does at any rate show some little disagreement with the views taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith and I will only reinforce, the observations of that very high Member of the Government by pointing out to my hon. and gallant Friend that these Amendments which we are about to consider do not involve any great constitutional struggle such as he anticipates, and that this Bill and these Amendments are a very minor part of the Rent Restrictions legislation. Therefore, I hope that no hon. Members will get unduly perturbed or excited about the business which confronts us this afternoon. It is perfectly true that these Amendments do not deal with a matter in which, I know, hon. Members opposite took some little interest, namely, the question of evictions arising from non-payment of rent. None of these Amendments deal with that matter; in fact, no part of the Bill deals with it. I must confess that I was wondering whether the Government were going to deal with this matter, especially after the speeches which have been made. I was interested in the fate of the Bill which the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself introduced, but of which we have heard nothing more. If that Bill had been brought forward, we might have been dealing with a matter of some importance. I hope that in dealing with these Amendments we shall preserve a due sense of proportion and realise that they do not raise any great constitutional struggle this afternoon.

Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) has made a very good-humoured speech, as he usually does, but he seemed to have some difficulty in precisely defining the character of the Bill to which these Amendments have been
made. At one time he described it as a "lifebuoy' and at, another time as an "anchor." Under these circumstances, it. does not seem inappropriate that he should have inquired into the intoxication of the Government at the time of their varying attitudes towards one of these Amendments. I agree with the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) that we need not get very excited over these Amendments. The House of Lords is still entitled to propose Amendments; indeed, it has statutory authority to do so. The real question is what attitude we should take in regard to these Amendments. It is altogether irrelevant to deal with the Government's attitude. This, more than any other Bill, is a Bill of the House itself, first of all, in its origin, and, secondly, in regard to an Amendment. which was made by the House after consideration, because during the Committee stage it was declined by the Government. and the Government's refusal was supported by their own regular supporters, and it was only when we came to the Report stage, after full consideration and after the matter had been thoroughly debated, that the House decided on the insertion of the words which the House of Lords wishes to delete. Under these circumstances, the House has a special duty to maintain its position. It is not a matter which has escaped attention and to which the other House is calling attention; it is a matter which has been already fully discussed, and I am very glad that the Government have indicated that in regard to all these Amendments they are going to advise the House to reject them.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 13 & 14 Geo. 5, c. 32, s. 4, ss. (1).)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, leave out the words from the first word "landlord" in line 14 to the word "for" in line 17.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I do not propose to say more than a word or two upon this Clause, because,
as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) has pointed out, this Amendment is to take out words which were put in after full discussion and with a view to giving what I regarded as an additional safeguard to the tenant. The Government therefore cannot accept the Amendment from another place and it is my duty to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments." At the same time I wish to move an Amendment. It will be within the recollection of the House that on the Report stage we put in words which were suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and, on consideration, it was found that they did not express the undoubted intention of the House. I shall, therefore, have to move the omission of the words "owner by purchase of the dwelling-house" and the substitution for them of the words "landlord by purchase of the dwelling-house or any interest therein." That does not alter the sense of the words which it is not proposed by the Lords Amendment to leave out, and it makes clear the intention of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not been supplied with a copy of the proposed Amendment. The proper procedure will be, I think, first to disagree with the Lords Amendment, and subsequently to move the insertion of the alteration indicated by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I am not sure that I have correctly followed the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say, first, that the Government advise the House to reject the Lords Amendment, and that if that is done then, incidentally, he proposes to alter a phrase in the parenthetical sentence. If I am not mistaken, the Lords Amendment took the form of cutting out the parenthesis altogether, and I want to ask in what way, within the rules, we can make a change in the parenthesis which the Lords have struck out?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is always possible to disagree with a Lords Amendment, and to substitute for it some modified form of words. As I have said, I have not yet had a copy of the proposed Amendment handed to me, but it seems to me that the proper plan will be first to deal with
the Question, "That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) apparently claims that his party is the one chiefly interested in defending the rights of tenants, but I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House are equally anxious to do that. We are all trying to deal fairly with them, but it so happens that some hon. Members on our side feel that in dealing fairly with the tenants we must be careful not to deal unfairly with landlords. The House has accepted the fundamental motive of this Bill, the guiding principle of which is to be the question of hardship. The County Court Judge is to be left to exercise his discretion in deciding on which side lies the greater hardship, whether it is on the side of the tenant whom it is proposed to turn out of the dwelling, or on the side of the landlord who is seeking to secure possession of it. If this Amendment is put in it will prevent a landlord who has purchased his house after the 5th May having any say whatever before the Court—it will prevent him having a chance to prove that the hardship is on his side. We only ask that the landlord shall be able to submit his case to the Court. We do not suggest that he should be given a preferential position. We want him to have the same right as the landlord who bought his house before the 5th May of convincing the County Court Judge, if he can, that the greater hardship is on his side. It is common ground on all sides that we want to get houses built. We want, in fact, free trade in houses as far as possible; we want to encourage men to build houses and to own them unfettered by the clogs which were an inevitable consequence of the War and which all parties are agreed should be got rid of as soon as possible, without inflicting undue hardship on either the tenant or the landlord. A man may buy a house for investment purposes and may do so perfectly honestly and frankly. It is proposed to bring this Bill to an end in 1926, but who is to say that a Motion may not be brought forward to extend its operation for another two or three years? If a man bought his house for investment purposes on the 3rd May,
and then desired to get possession, he would be entitled to go to the Court on the question of hardship, and to have that question decided by the Judge; but if he bought it after the 5th May for investment purposes, and, in the course of a year or two, owing to a change of circumstances, he wants to have it for his own occupation, he will not, if this Amendment be carried, be permitted to go to the County Court Judge and prove to him that his hardship is greater than that of the tenant.
I confess I cannot quite see on what ground right hon. Gentlemen opposite are basing their present action. They are admitting the fairness of leaving the matter to the decision of the County Court Judge in the case of the man who purchased before the 5th May, and they are refusing to allow the man who purchased after that date the privilege of submitting his claim on the ground of hardship to the County Court Judge. We are only asking that the man who bought after the 5th May may be allowed to convince the County Court Judge, if he can, that the hardship is on his side and not on the side of the tenant. If you insist on striking out these words, you are going to say you will not trust the County Court Judge in the one case while you trust him in the other. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but that is what it really amounts to. Of course, if a man bought a house quite obviously for the purpose of turning out the tenant, no County Court Judge in the world would find that the hardship was on the side of the owner of the house. He would reasonably find that the greater hardship was on the part of the tenant whom it was proposed to turn out. All we are asking for is that the fullest discretion shall be given to the County Court Judge to decide the question of hardship as between landlord and tenant in all cases, and I suggest that, in one class of cases only, to take away the discretion from the County Court Judge would mean transferring it to the House of Commons, which, I think, would be quite improper. Having regard to the fact that the Government themselves accepted this position in the Committee upstairs, although after fuller consideration they changed their mind and voted for the elimination of these words, I do suggest that both the House and the Government may then further consider
the point and agree to leave the discretion entirely with the County Court Judge in all cases.

Mr. E. D. SIMON: I fully agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) said just now, that we all want the greatest possible fairness as between landlord and tenant. We also want to encourage people to buy houses for investment in such a way as will ensure new houses being built. But the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman subsequently tended in an exactly opposite direction. There has been an extraordinary amount of misunderstanding about this Bill, and there is a good deal of it still existing. I think the House will realise that if this date is inserted in the Bill it will mean that anyone who after the date buys a house will not be able to eject the tenant unless he provides alternative accommodation. It is quite obvious that the insertion of the date is a protection to the tenant, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I think, will not deny that. It is interesting to know that these words were in the original Bill. They were thrown out upstairs under the direction of the Attorney-General, although we tried to persuade him to retain them. It was a rather complicated case of legislation by reference, and in the end the hon. and learned Gentleman agreed, on the Report stage, to the insertion of the words which had been rejected by the Government in Committee. Then the Bill went to another place, and there again the words were rejected, and now the Bill has come back to us. I hope we are going to have the words finally inserted in the Bill. It has been asked, what is the reason for treating a landlord who buys after a given date differently from the landlord who bought before that date? I should think the reason is quite obvious. If the landlord bad already bought the house before the date, he did so subject to certain conditions embodied in the law of the land, and he expected that under certain conditions he would be able to get possession of the house. Having invested his money under these conditions, it is unfair that his position should now be reversed and that he should be refused power to secure possession without providing the tenant with alternative accommodation. This would
be obviously a case where the hardship would be greater on the landlord than on the tenant. There was absolute unanimity on the point that the existing landlord should be allowed to take his case before the County Court. Judge to prove that the hardship is on his side and that the decision should be left to the unfettered discretion of the learned Judge. There is in fact no desire to fetter that discretion, and it is believed that in these cases the County Court Judge will do justice as between landlord and tenant.
But when we conic to the case of the landlord who buys after the date fixed, the position is different. This is the case of a man who has saved a certain amount of money; he has not hitherto been the landlord, but he has decided to lock up his money in some house. He is not tied to any particular house unless, indeed, he comes to the conclusion it is the only house which will suit him. Under the Housing Act of last year the speculative builder is at work building a large number of new houses, and in Manchester, at any rate, I am told, on the highest possible authority, that these houses Can he purchased on such reasonable terms that they are, if anything, cheaper than other houses, and are certainly generally of better value. [An HON. MEMBER: "Applicants do not think so!"] I am speaking of Manchester, and there are a great many Manchester applicants for the new houses that are being built; they are all being snapped up as they are built.
It seems to me that it is most desirable that we should give every possible encouragement to these people who have saved money and are prepared to buy houses. When you have a thrifty artisan prepared to buy a house, you give him a grant of £75, and if he is not prepared to buy a house you propose to give him a grant of £240, and for that reason it may not be as desirable to buy houses as it would have been before we had the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to housing. It seems to me even now to be the general experience that you can buy these new houses at a reasonable price and get reasonable accommodation, and surely it is desirable for us to encourage people, not to go and buy an old house, in the hope of ejecting the tenant, but to buy a new house. That protects the tenant and gets the house
built, and it does another important thing, because it ensures that you get this new money put into houses. If a man buys a house from an existing landlord, that landlord very probably puts the money into Consols or some other investment of that kind, but if a person buys a new house, that is definitely- so much new money put into housing, and is a contribution towards finding the untold millions that the right hon. Gentleman hopes to spend on housing in the next 15 years.
In this matter you have three classes of people to consider: You have the would-be landlord, you have the existing tenant, and you have the community. It seems perfectly clear that, in the interests of all three classes, it is better that the would-be landlord should become the landlord, not of an old house, but of a. new house, and, from the point of view of the tenant, it needs no argument at all. You have millions of tenants throughout the country, and if you insert this date, those tenants will have absolute security that nobody can come along and buy their houses and turn them out into the street. As regards the would-be buyer, he probably gets better value. If you insert the date, it will force him to realise that he can get a new house. It may give him more trouble to get a new house built., but I think it is just and fair that he should be given that amount of trouble, only you must give him whatever grant is necessary to make a new house as advantageous for him to buy as an old house. In Manchester, I think that is already tho case. Thirdly, as regards the community, if you insert this date, you are going to- force these people to build new houses, and they will be doing their bit towards the solution of the housing problem, which 1% ill be a real step in the right direction. I feel that the House should do as it did on the last occasion, and disagree with this Amendment of the Lords, and I appeal specially to hon. Members opposite to agree to the insertion of this date, by which they will be doing something to secure that their own Housing Act of last year will continue to be a success as regards the building of houses for sale.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: There is one good reason that has not been mentioned yet why we should agree with the Lords in this Amendment, which is to leave out the words
not being a landlord who has become owner by purchase of the dwelling-house
after a certain date. Nothing has been said in this Bill, or in the Amendment, which has been mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, of the case of the mortgagee of a house. As is well known, of the small houses with which we are dealing the vast proportion carry a mortgage, and it would appear that under the original wording of the Bill it is perfectly competent for a mortgagee to foreclose his mortgage and to take possession of the house, not acquiring it by purchase at all. The Bill deals only with houses acquired by purchase, and the Amendment of the Parliamentary Secretary also deals with houses acquired by purchase. In neither case is any provision made for the case of the mortgagee who forecloses his mortgage, and it seems to me that it is symptomatic of the extraordinary carelessness with which these Housing Bills of late years have been drafted.
I should be glad to know from the learned Attorney-General what would be the position, supposing a mortgagee with a mortgage on a house wished to have that house for his own occupation or for the occupation of his son or daughter. Under this Bill, is it not the case that that mortgagee could, by foreclosing, avoid the provisions of the Bill and obtain possession of the house? Take a practical case. Supposing a person who wants a house for himself, or for his son or daughter, has not actually at the moment got a mortgage on a house, but supposing an existing owner of a house wishes to sell, it is perfectly competent to those two, by agreement, to come to an arrangement of this sort, that the original owner mortgages his house to the man who wishes to become the owner and occupier of that house, that the new mortgagee promptly forecloses and gets possession of the house, and the whole principle of this Clause falls to the ground. Will the Attorney-General inform us, from his deep legal knowledge, if that is not the case, should these words be left in the Bill, and that they give no protection whatever?

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkin-
son) has imagined a most extraordinary case happening, but how many cases are there where a mortgagee wants to enter into possession of a house? I think we cannot take that argument seriously, and I do not think the hon. Member intended that we should take seriously this extraordinary flight of imagination in which he has indulged.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Member has accused me of putting forward, not seriously, a point which is perfectly valid and serious. I deny it absolutely, and anybody who has listened to these hours of talk which we have heard in this House might very well bring the same accusation against other hon. Members.

Mr. THOMSON: The hon. Member is exceedingly serious, as he always is, and the House, I am sure, will give due weight to the advice which he has given. With regard to the point made by the right lion. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), who said he was anxious above all else not to put restrictions in the way of the building of new houses, I submit that nothing in this Bill affects the building of new houses. As has been said very often, the Rent Restrictions Acts do not in any way affect the building of any new houses, as they are all exempt from the provisions of these restrictive Sections, and, therefore, I submit that there is no substance in that part of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman.In fact, I think the contention is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Mr. E. Simon) so well put it, that by encouraging people to spend their money in the building of new houses, and by not encouraging them to invest in the buying of old houses, you will thereby increase the production of these new houses. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman opposite should object to this particular Clause, because it follows the precedent set by himself and by the preceding Government when dealing with rent restriction. In the 1917 Act and in the 1922 Act you had a date put in after which houses purchased should not come within the provisions of those Acts, and if that was sound in 1917 and in 1922, I submit that it is equally sound to-day. I feel sure that the House will disagree with the Lords in this particular matter, in order to relieve that uncertainty and anxiety which would otherwise be brought
home to hundreds of thousands of tenants who do not know what may happen to them if they have not the protection afforded by this Clause. The acceptance of the Lords Amendment would bring consternation to the minds of very many tenants throughout the country.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) that the point raised by him is a substantial one, and that the inclusion of the words "by purchase" will have a very limiting effect. It is not only a question of obtaining possession of a house by purchase, but it is a question also of persons who may conic into possession of a house by descent, and that point is not dealt with by these words. That is simply by the way, and when the time comes I hope my hon. Friend will move an Amendment to eliminate these words "by purchase." I should like to say one word in reply to what fell from the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. Simon). He did not convince me that this was holding the scales quite fairly between landlord and tenant. Why cannot the matter be left absolutely to the County Court Judge to test the issue as to whether the hardship is greater to the landlord or the tenant? Why should the scales be weighted against the landlord by this exceedingly difficult provision of alternative accommodation having to be found? My hon. Friend, with his great experience in housing matters, will know that there is no Section in the 1-lousing Act more difficult to carry out than this one in regard to alternative accommodation. I need not go into the reasons why, as they are obvious, but they represent a very serious difficulty. When, for instance, is alternative accommodation to be provided? That has caused the greatest possible difficulty to County Court Judges. Alternative accommodation is a very elusive thing. If present to-day, when an action is commenced, it may be entirely absent in a fortnight's time, when the action is finished.
I desire to see fair play between landlord and tenant, and I do not think the bringing into play, as my hon. Friend thinks it right to do, of the question of alternative accommodation in this matter would be fair play to a large number of landlords, whose case of hardship may be desperate and out of all kind
of proportion to the hardship on the tenant. I think my hon. Friend shows a certain absence of confidence in the County Court Judges in this matter. We all know that throuthout the country the decisions of the County Court Judges have been most fair, and that if they have ever given consideration, it has been invariably in favour of the tenant. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh"] That is my experience, in any case, and I have never heard anything to the contrary. One has seen case after case in the papers, and one knows many cases personally, and my experience is that if there has been any question of consideration, it has almost invariably been in favour of the tenant and certainly has never been in favour of the landlord. I think the other place has adopted quite a fair and impartial way of dealing with this matter, and a way, moreover, which the Government themselves at first thought was fair and impartial.

Mr. FOOT: The hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat complains that we are inserting a principle in asking that a landlord who becomes a landlord after the passing of this Bill, and requires possession, shall prove alternative accommodation. We are not inserting a principle there. We are simply restoring the principle that was in the. Measure to which. I have no doubt, the hon. Member himself was a party.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I did not say you were inserting a new principle; I said you were applying it, as I thought., somewhat partially in the present case.

Mr. FOOT: As I understand the position up to the time when the Act was passed in 1923, a landlord desiring to obtain accommodation for himself had to satisfy the Court that alternative accommodation was available. That principle did give an effective protection to tenants. I have no doubt, in passing the Measure which gave that protection, the hon. Member took his part. It was that principle, which did give effective protection to the tenant, that was broken into by the Act passed in 1923, and, at the time, it was stated that trouble would arise. That trouble did arise. At once, upon the passing of the Measure that was introduced by the right hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain).
thousands of applications were made in the first few weeks. I know, in a great many cases, the County Court Judges refused to evict the tenants, but thousands of orders were made, and I think the hon. Member will appreciate that anxiety is caused, even if the parties have to appear before the Court. Besides the number of actual orders that were made by the judges, very frequently the tenant would come to some sort of arrangement, however unfortunate to himself, rather than incur the anxiety of Court proceedings and the very heavy expense involved. There are some cases where an expense of £10 or £20 has been incurred before the case has been decided. There are very many families that cannot possibly bear that burden, and rather than hear it, or attempt to bear it, and have hang over their heads a prolonged anxiety, very often a settlement is arrived at which is very unfair to the tenant. I do not see where the real hardship does arise if a man now buying a house is made to buy it with the knowledge that if it is occupied by another person—and in buying it occupied he gets it at a very much lower price than if he gets it for occupation—and is buying it with his eyes open, knowing that he cannot turn the tenant out unless he can show that the tenant has got somewhere to go. That seems a reasonable proposition, which puts no hardship on the man who now becomes the owner, and there is every reason for the insertion of the date, seeing that it follows on the lines of the previous Measures. When this matter was discussed on the Report stage the House did not Divide upon this matter. The contentions that were put forward on this side, I suppose, were accepted on that side, and it is difficult to imagine circumstances where a Measure could go up to the other House more generally representing the mind of the Lower House than the one which, I hope, we shall now send up in the original form.

Sir K. WOOD: We have just heard a very fair statement of the case, with which I am in a large measure of agreement, but I would like. to point out that we are really dealing with a very small number of cases involved in the matter we are discussing. The hon. Member far West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) talked about relief for thousands of
tenants being involved in this Amendment. It is nothing of the sort. I need only quote the words of the Attorney-General, when he dealt with this particular Amendment on the: Report stage. He said that there was an infinitesimal number of cases involved, and, if I may respectfully, for once, agree with him, he was quite right. Members of the House should realise that, in the first place, this does not apply to any purchaser of a house which has been erected after the 2nd April, 1919. It does not apply to any house which has actually come into the possession of the landlord after June, 1923. It does not apply to any owner who gets possession of a house, we will say, owing to non-payment of rent, or breach of covenants. I hope hon. Members opposite realise that the law is actually the same now, and there is no suggestion that it should be altered in this Bill. The Government are making no proposals whatever in that connection, and therefore I think hon. Members will realise what a very small number of cases are involved in this Amendment. The Attorney-General said he thought this was a matter of comparatively little importance, and the only reason why he was disposed to accept the Amendment was
that there appear to he a considerable number of people who fear that unless this date is put in, there will be an immense number of landlords who will buy houses, and who w ill turn out the tonants."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1924; col. 104, Vol. 173.]
The Attorney-General only consented to this Amendment. being put in—and I can understand his reason — not on the ground that there were many cases that would arise, but because people would naturally have apprehensions about the matter, and I fully share what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) has said. I know full well, in my own constituency, eviction orders have been issued at the instance of the Government and have, in fact., riot been carried out, but there is the apprehension that the people never know when they may be turned into the street. I agree that matter ought to be considered, but I should not like hon. Members to take it that we are bringing relief one way or the other in connection with this to any appreciable number of people at all. I regard this, therefore, as not being of particular importance one way or the other. The hon. Member used a
rather unfortunate argument in favour of his proposal. He said if we only passed this Amendment it would encourage people to purchase new houses. I venture to think that would be a very unfortunate thing at this moment, because what is happening up and down the country? The difficulty is that people -are so badly in need of houses and few houses are being erected. There is any number of people after a single house that may be erected, and up goes the price, and people are getting, undoubtedly, much bigger prices than they ought to get to-day. What will be the result if this Amendment he passed? I can understand his argument if there are any number of houses to be sold, but he. is merely adding more people to those corning in and bidding for the houses available. I submit that will not, lead to a solution of the housing problem, but may rather retard it.
Therefore, my own view of this matter is this—the Attorney-General may agree with me or not—that under the recent decision of Shrimpton vRabbits in the Court of Appeal, it is now laid down that every relative circumstance in a case of this kind has to be considered by a County Court Judge, and the very first thing—I think the hon. Member for Bodmin will agree with me in this—the County Court Judge always asks is, when did the landlord buy the house? I do not know myself of a single County Court Judge who, if he were told that the particular plaintiff had bought the house three or four days ago, would give an order for possession to-morrow. Where that romantic idea prevails I cannot conceive. A very learned County Court Judge, Sir Edward Bray, wrote a public letter to the papers only a few weeks ago, saying that the question of alternative accommodation and all matters, including the date of the purchase of the house, naturally had to be considered by a County Court Judge before he made an order. And, obviously, the question as to whether a man bought on the 5th or 6th May this year would be a matter to which every County Court Judge in the country would fully address himself. My hon. Friend said that if there had been any bias at all, it had been in favour of the tenant. I prefer to say the decisions of the County Court Judges throughout the country have generally been accepted by
plaintiff and defendant without question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Speaking as a rule, that is so, and I think, if you ask most people who go to our County Courts, they will tell you that they are impressed with the fairness and endeavour on the part of the County Court Judges to do justice. Therefore, there is a good deal in the argument, which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed this afternoon, that this matter could be left to the County Court Judge, as, in fact, it is left, under the decision of the Court of Appeal, and that all these matters have to be taken into account. Therefore, I hope the House, whatever decision it may come to on this particular matter, will remember that this Amendment is only directed to an infinitesimal number of people, and, in all probability, the matter covered by this Amendment is covered by the decision in the Court of Appeal. In any event, I think the House can rely upon it, that it is one of the relevant matters that every County Court Judge would take into account.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. MILLS: I would like to agree, for once, with the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) and the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). I have had some experience of seeing things administered in County Courts, but I want to put this suggestion to the consideration of the House. If you put in a date, what follows? Thousands of tenants have been before the Judge again and again. The Judge has postponed the order of eviction, hoping that, possibly, the tenant may secure other accommodation. If this particular date be put in, there is a tendency that the County Court Judge will strike the line with any landlord after this particular date, and, as a result of that, give possession to all those who have secured their houses by purchase before this date. I think really that this particular matter is one of substance, and that the original views held by the Attorney-General, and insisted upon by the House of Lords, may not be quite so reactionary as some people imagine. There is a very real danger—[An HON. MEMBER: "It was a Tory speech!"] It might be a very good Tory speech, and one of sound common sense, as judged by hon. Member,
who,like myself, have many people threatened with eviction. It is because the point does occur to me that this may lead the Judge to take the view—in order to dispose of continual appeals by applicants for houses—that here is a date that gives him a definite line of demarcation. There is a real danger that this very Clause may defeat the object we have in view.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I agree that the insertion of a date is thoroughly reactionary. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Henn), like other hon. Members, are repeating the arguments they used on previous occasions. Seeing, however, they were dealt with on a pre- vious occasion, they need not be replied to now. But I do want to point out one very serious point. The real objection to this date is that it does what no previous date has ever done. It takes away a right which now exists. All the previous dates about which hon. Members opposite have been talking—every time a date was put into a previous Measure it was to confer a new freedom, to relax a restriction imposed. Now you are by this date reimposing a restriction which has been taken off, and for the first time in rent restriction legislation you are subjecting the owners of houses to restrictions greater than they were under a few months before. That is, I understand, the intention of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) to impose additional restriction; to take away a previous right. That is his object.

Mr. SIMON: There are no additional restrictions on existing landlords, but additional restrictions on those who shall buy a house in future.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member for Withington has a certain confusion of thought in this matter when he talks about the past. Hon, Members ought not to say that the past. is the past and the future the future. What will hon. Members say six months hence? They will look back and say: "What is the difference between the dates before and after the 5th May? Why was the 5th May fixed?

Mr. SIMON: The date fixed is the date of the passing of the Act. Why it should be that date is best known to others. The whole point is the date of the passing of the Act. Anyone who buys after that
knows perfectly well that he cannot get possession without providing alternative accommodation. They will know that quite as well 10 years hence as now.

Lord E. PERCY: Why should you pass an Act on that particular date, and on no other? The hon. Gentleman is really quite wrong in thinking that a landlord buying a house after that date, with the fact of the Act before him, is in a different position from a landlord before. A year hence you will have the landlord who bought after 5th May say: "Yes, unfortunately, bought after the 5th May, but I bought in the expectation of the lapsing of the Rent Restrictions Act in 1925." Therefore, you have to include, as has always been done, as a privilege the people who bought before 5th May. Does not the hon. Member for Withington see that he is taking a purely artificial line, and the one significance of that line is this, that he is imposing a new restriction. He says: "This will

encourage people to buy new houses, will encourage them to invest in new houses." Why? He is imposing a new restriction. How does the investor know, when once you begin to impose new restrictions you will not begin to impose restrictions you new houses? It has already been done once—in 1920. Restrictions were imposed on houses which had been exempted from previous Acts. If you want to create the atmosphere that you are, as time goes on, going to impose new restrictions, and not take off existing ones, you will get no one to supply houses. The real danger of this proposal is that it is reactionary; it reimposes restrictions and is a further blow to that confidence which was beginning to be regained.

Question put, "That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 127.

Division No. 91.]
AYES.
[5.8 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, V. L.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Macfadyen, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Mackinder, W.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Asqulth, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Hardie, George D.
Marden, H.


Ayles, W. H.
Harris, John (Hackney, North)
March, S.


Baker, Walter
Harris, Percy A.
Martey, James


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Maxton, James


Batcy, Joseph
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Meyter, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Middleton, G.


Birkett, W. N.
Haycock, A. W.
Mills, J. E.


Bonwick, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Montague, Frederick


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Morris, R. H.


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Mosley, Oswald


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hindle, F.
Muir, John W.


Church, Major A. G.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)


Clarke, A.
Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Naylor, T. E.


Climie, R.
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Nichol, Robert


Cluse, W. S.
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
O'Grady, Captain James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hudson, J. H.
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)


Cove, W. G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Paling, W.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Palmer, E. T.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Dodds, S. R.
Jewson, Dorothea
Perry, S. F.


Dukes, C.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.


Duncan, C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Phillipps, Vivian


Edwards, C, (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pilkington, R. R.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Keens, T.
Pringie, W. M. R.


Egan, W. H.
Kennedy, T.
Purcell, A. A.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Kenyon, Barnet
Raffan, P. W.


Falconer, J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Raffety, F. W.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lansbury, George
Rea, W. Russell


Fletcher, Lieut-Commander R. T. H
Laverack, F. J.
Richards, R.


Foot, Isaac
Law, A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Lawson, John James.
Ritson, J.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Leach, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Lee, F.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gillett, George M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Robertson, T. A.


Gosling, Harry
Loverseed, J. F.
Romerll, H. G.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lunn, William
Rose, Frank H.


Greenall, T.
McCrae, Sir George
Royce, William Stapleton


Royle, C.
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Scrymgeour, E.
Stranger, Innes Harold
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Scurr, John
Sturrock, J. Leng
Weir, L M.


Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Terrington, Lady
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Sherwood, George Henry
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Whiteley, W.


Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withington)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Wignall, James


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Simpson, J. Hope
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Thornton, Maxwell R.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington)


Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Thurtle, E.
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)


Snell, Harry
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Willison, H.


Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Windsor, Walter


Spence, R.
Viant, S. P.
Wintringham, Margaret


Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Vivian, H.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Spero, Dr. G. E.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wright, W.


Stamford, T. W.
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)



Starmer, Sir Charles
Warne, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stephen, Campbell
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Frederick Hall.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William


Apsley, Lord
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Penny, Frederick George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Batfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Phillipson, Mabel


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pildlteh, Sir Philip


Becker, Harry
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Berry, Sir George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Remnant, Sir James


Bourne, Captain R. C
Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hoffman, P. C.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northn.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Huntingfield, Lord
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Bullock, Captain M.
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Burman, J. B.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Butt, Sir Alfred
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cairic, Gordon Hall
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Lord


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Eveiyn (Aston)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Samuel Strang


Clarry, Reginald George
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sutcllffe, T.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lord, Walter Greaves.
Titcnfield, Major the Marquess of


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lorimer, H. D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cope, Major William
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cowan, sir Win. Henry (Islington, N.)
MacDonald, R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
McLean, Major A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Making, Brigadier-General E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Dawson, Sir Philip
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Dlxey, A. C.
Meller, R. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Elliot, Walter E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)



Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Colonel G. A. Gibbs and Major


FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sir Harry Barnston.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the words "owner by purchase of the dwelling-house," and to insert instead thereof the words
landlord by purchasing the dwelling-house or fitly interest therein.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I cannot understand what is effected by this proposed change of words. I have been looking at this
proposal very carefully and it does not seem to me to make the slightest change. What I want to know is whether or not there is any change in the meaning of the Clause which will be achieved by these words.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The purpose of inserting these words is not to alter the meaning but to make the meaning more clear.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps the Attorney-General will explain to us the exact meaning of "landlord"and "owner."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): I thought the words were reasonably plain. If hon. Members will look at the original words of the Bill they will find they were "become owner by purchase." It is quite conceivable that a difficulty might arise as to what is the meaning of "owner by purchase." An owner of what? I am sure hon. Members do not want me to give a disquisition on the meaning of fee simple, but I think the words which are now suggested are quite plain. They refer to a person who has become a landlord by purchasing the dwelling-house or by purchasing any interest in the dwelling-house. The essential qualification is that the person should be the landlord in fact, and becomes landlord by purchasing the whole of the house or the lease of a house or other interests in the house, and if he becomes a landlord after such purchase then this provision applies to him and no difficulty can arise.

Sir DOUGLAS HOGG: I am loth to intervene in a discussion of words which I have no doubt the Attorney-General has carefully considered, but they are words which, personally, I only heard for the first time when they were read out at the commencement of the Debate this a fternoon. I wish to ask whether the Government have very carefully considered what is the effect of these words, and what they will cover. For instance, one of my hon. Friends on this side suggested a little earlier in the Debate that it might be possible for somebody, instead of buying a house, to lend money on it and then foreclose. I should like to know whether the Attorney-General and the Minister of Health are satisfied, if that device were adopted, a person who became so entitled had purchased the dwelling-house. Speaking with all the deference due to the Attorney-General, I should have thought. he had not, because he has not purchased anything. If we are to have an alteration in the wording to put that quite clear and beyond all doubt, stating exactly what is meant, and have words inserted to avoid the intricacies as to who is and who is not an owner, I think words might be chosen which would more
definitely explain exactly what is intended to be covered. I am quite in the dark as to whether a person who has obtained possession and becomes an owner by lending money and then forecloses comes within the meaning of the words now proposed. A good many people in the courts might find the same difficulty, and they would not think that this point is reasonably clear. I think we might have a little further explanation before we accept this 59th second of the 59th minute of the 59th hour deathbed repentance in order to give effect to what the Government really wants to do.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Perhaps hon. Members would permit me to speak again on this point, because I am sure no one desires that my right hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down should remain in the dark about this question. Some observations on this point were made by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) and I did not answer them because it seemed to me that. they could have left nobody in the dark. The device of which be spoke was that a person who was a mortgagor might put his head together with a person who desired to become a mortgagee to go through the device of pretending to effect a mortgage, and then pretend to foreclose in order to get possession of a house. The hon. Member who made that suggestion thought it required a legal answer, but I did not think so, because if a person goes through a fraudulent device like that, it would not hold water for a moment. Supposing a person says, "In order To pretend we are riot purchasing, if you will go through the form of giving me a mortgage so that I may foreclose in order to get possession," my answer is that. that would be held by a County Court Judge to be merely a device to avoid and evade the provisions of this Bill. I can quite understand that. my right hon. Friend opposite has not been devoting himself to that portion of the argument, and he was devoting himself more to the mortgagee, but I think the words are quite plain.
The person aiiuied at by this l;ill eriginally was the purchaser. r know there was the case of a person who became owner by inheritance, but. the Bill does not provide for that. These words are only to provide against a person who deliberately purchases a house and turns out the tenant. If a purchaser purchases any interest in a house he is also liable to
this provision. If he does not purchase, he is not liable. If a person takes a mortgage and then forecloses, to my mind he is not a purchaser, and I should be very much surprised if my right hon. Friend opposite says that a person who takes a mortgage and forecloses becomes a puechaser. My view is that he does not. I did not think that my right hon. and learned Friend opposite is so much in darkness as he pretends to he, because the only person affected is one who purchases a house, or any interest in a house, or buys a house or any interest in a house. Therefore I do not think there is much doubt about the matter.

Viscount WOLMER: The explanation which has been given to the House is that if a man forecloses a mortgage and gets the house he does not become the owner by purchase. Therefore the restrictive words in this Bill would not apply. If the man has gone through that process simply to get possession of the house, and has become able to evict a tenant, then the Attorney-General says the Court would hold that, he had acted in a fraudulent manner.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I really said nothing of the sort. I said that if the person who owned the house went through the form of granting a mortgage to somebody else, merely as a device by pretending to give a mortgage, the County Court Judge might. decide that that was fraudulent.

Viscount WOLMER: I do riot see much difference between that and the version I have given. The point is that the County Court Judge will have to decide what were the intentions of the parties in regard to the agreement when the mortgage was executed. Surely that is putting the County Court Judge in a very difficult. position. If the transaction has been entered into in the ordinary way of business, then the person who forecloses will not be a purchaser and will not be subject to the restrictive words of this Bill. If, however, it has been done with an ulterior object, then, according to the Attorney-General, he would he within the Act. It seems to me that that leaves the matter in an extraordinarily unsatisfactory condition, and, unless it is more precisely cleared up we are likely to have trouble on this question in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 1, line 18, after the word "himself," insert the words
or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, as an Amendment. to the Lords Amendment, after the word "any," to insert the word "married."
This Amendment of the Lords is one which deals with the provision in the Bill that purports to take away from the landlord the right to obtain possession of his house for the purpose of putting in a son or a daughter. We are dealing with something which the Bill is definitely taking away and which the landlord previously had. When this matter was being considered in Committee, I did not at that moment think that it was a matter of very great importance, because I was rather misled by the idea, which I then had, that these cases had practically all been dealt with within six or nine months of the passing of the Act of 1923. I knew that. at that time a:area number of cases were waiting to be heard, and that they were heard and disposed of in one way or another, and I did not think that there were very many outstanding or that it was a matter of very great importance. The mistake that I and some others who thought with me made was, that we did not realise that circumstances are apt to change—that the position of thi landlord is apt to change and that the position of the tenant is apt to change. There are such things as increases in families and decreases in families. The landlord may have a married son or daughter in his house, and he may be able to put up with them very well until there comes an addition to the family. They may then become overcrowded, and the conditions for the landlord would then become hard. In the case of the tenant, also, things may change. Members of his family who are living with him may go away, or members of his family may die, and the position may easily be that you may have a tenant in a house that is much too big for his requirements, and you may have a landlord and his family in another house which is very much overcrowded. It is perfectly feasible that that might happen. The law as it stands at present is that the landlord can obtain possession if he reasonably requires the house for
his son or his daughter who is over the age of 18. The Bill as it left this House took away that right entirely from the landlord, and would only give him the right to possession if alternative accommodation for the tenant could be found; and that, as everyone in practice knows, means not obtaining possession at all. The Lords have put back the provision of the 1923 Act, making it applicable to the case of a son or daughter over the age of 18. The object of my Amendment is to insert the word "married" after the word "any" and after the word "or," and to substitute the age of 25 for 18, so that the Clause would then read:
or for any married son or married daughter of his over twenty-five years of age.
What is going to be the position if that is carried? The position would be that the landlord would have to have a married son or daughter over the age of 25, would have reasonably to require possession of the house, and would have to apply to the County Court Judge and show that the hardship on his side was greater than on the side of the tenant. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable proposition to put forward. We are asking here again, as in the other case, that the whole question should be on the basis of greater hardship. If the greater hardship is on the landlord, why should not justice be done to him?

Major WHELER: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords. Amendment.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I had hoped that there would have been no trouble over the proposal to disagree with the Lords Amendment in this case, even from hon. Members opposite. I understood that the opinion of hon. Members opposite was in that direction when the matter was previously before this Horse, and I had, therefore assumed—a little rashly—that they would agree with us in our intention to disagree with the Lords Amendment. We have heard references to fair treatment of landlords and tenants, and I think it was felt on this side of the House and by hon. Members below the Gangway that the effect of the Act of last year was so to open the door to new concessions to the landlord that it tilted the scales on the side of the landlord and against the tenant. The purpose of restricting concessions to the landlord himself was to
redress that balance. If you are going to allow the landlord and a numerous progeny of sons and daughters over 18, as is suggested in the Lords Amendment, to obtain possession of the house, it means that there are odds against the tenant, and that, I submit, is not treating the tenant and the landlord with equal justice. I am sure I am right when I say that the deliberate intention of this House, when we were considering the Bill before, was to remove this unnecessarily generous concession which had been granted to landlords in the Act of last year, and I cannot think that the House will go back on that decision. As regards the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts), it does not help us in the least, and we cannot accept it, because, quite clearly, if you allow the dependants of the landlord to obtain a right equal to that of the landlord, you are prejudicing the position of the tenant.

Mr. ROBERTS: It is only if the hardship is greater.

Mr. GREENWOOD: We admit the right of the landlord, but one cannot admit the right of his sons and his daughters. On that ground, whatever the age of the sons or daughters may be, we cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope the House will take our view on that matter.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not say that I should support disagreement with the Lords Amendment in the Lobby, but the statement which the Parliamentary Secretary has just made has certainly left me rather shaken in my opinion. He suggested, in the first place, that there was ground for some measure of reproach, because this Amendment had not been thought of in the Committee upstairs. I do not know whether there is really any substance in that, but. at any rate I think is is better not to have thought of it. in Committee than to have changed one's mind so frequently as the Government did in Committee and in the House. I would sooner, at any rate, have the reproach made against me that, after consideration, this Amendment had been brought forward in the House itself, than that, on such a very simple matter as the Government had to consider in the last Amendment, they should say one thing at one moment
and another thing at another moment—that on one occasion we should have the Attorney-General giving certain advice to the Committee, and, when he gets into the House, giving advice quite in the contrary direction. Therefore, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will, at any rate, spare the party on this side of the House from any reproach in that particular connection. Then he made an observation which I certainly think calls for some comment, namely, that he was opposed to this Amendment because the odds would be against the tenant. I do not think he can have read this particular Bill, or the Rent Restriction Act itself, and it should, perhaps, be explained to him that, before the owner of a house can get possession of it for his son or daughter, he has to satisfy the County Court Judge that greater hardship would arise from refusing the order than from granting it. That is not odds against. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is getting confused owing to the imminence of to-morrow's event, hut I should not say that that was odds against. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) knows more about these matters than I do, and knows what the odds are and what they are not.
I leave that to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that he. has failed altogether to deal with the position, because he has ignored the exact matter on which the owner of a house has to satisfy the County Court Judge before he can obtain possession. Most of the hon. Gentleman's argument appears to be based on the assumption that all these proposals are proposals by which the tenant is going to be evicted. but that is not the case at all. All that it means is that the owner of the house has to go to the County Corsrt Judge and has to put forward a very strong case indeed before he can get possession, and the strongest possible directions are laid down to the County Court Judge as to exactly what he has to be satisfied upon before an order can he granted. Tenants are not. left at the mercy of owners of houses in the way which the hon. Gentleman somehow seems vaguely to anticipate. Whether this Amendment be a good one or not, a very strict, scrutiny is applied, as hon. Members opposite know, in every one of these cases, and it is a matter of very great difficulty indeed to
obtain an order. I have heard some observations made in this House, in connection with this Bill and similar Bills, which might lead one to think that one could walk into a County Court and obtain an order for possession with the greatest case, but I know of nothing more difficult to accomplish. The hon. Member for Bodmin has had great experience in the Provinces in This connection, and I guarantee that if any landlord came. into his office and asked him to get an order for possession in a case like this, he, as the honest, sound lawyer that he is, would tell him that, he had better think twice before. he paid my hon. Friend any fees to embark upon the case. The odds—as we are talking about odds—are. 100 to 1 against getting any such order. That has been proved over and over again, because, notwithstanding the fact that there are, I suppose, millions of tenants in this country, actually last year only 15,000 orders were made at all.

Mr. FOOT: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many applications there were?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not. carry the figure in my mind, but I have just read the statement of the Lord Chancellor that in England and Wales there were only 15,000 orders actually made by the County Court Judges last year, and the Lord Chancellor further stated that only, I think, some 2,700 orders were executed, Let no one, therefore, think that there is some wonderful process going on up and down the country by which owners enter the County Courts and the County Court Judges say, "Very glad to see you; here is your order for possession." Nothing is more difficult to obtain. The only thing I have to say as regards this particular Amendment is that I think it is purely a question of balance of hardship. You probably have an owner who buys a house quite properly and legitimately for his son or daughter who is going to get married, and he wants to get possession of the house; and when one speaks of discomfort to a tenant, one must occasionally, quite properly, think of the discomforts of landlords. I know of very many cases where there is a tremendous amount of discomfort at the present time, where the young couple have to live with parents who have very limited accommodation themselves; and where the father has been able to save a sufficiency of money to buy a house for his son or daughter
who has just got married, there is undoubtedly a hardship if he is not able to obtain possession of the house. On the other hand, there is great hardship where a tenant has' to be turned into the street. I fully realise that, and I hope that members of the Government, and particularly the Secretary of State for War and the First Commissioner of Works, will remember it also. There are hardships in these cases, and the difficulty in which we find ourselves is that owing to the scarcity of houses this House is endeavouring to balance where the greatest hardship lies. If the Government will only get on with their housing policy—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Entwistle): The hon. Gentleman must really restrict himself to the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry I was carried away by what after all is the real solution of the question. I would only say that if the Government would put up as many houses as they have introduced Rent Bills, we should get on much faster.

Mr. FOOT: The hon. Gentleman will insist on what we think to be a. miscalculation in the discussion of this matter. He will always insist on the number of orders and he will not attach the proper importance to the number of applications that are made. I think he will agree that the trouble arises when first the solicitors are called into play. The unfortunate tenant receives a letter from the solicitor who is engaged by his land. lord and the trouble and anxiety arise at that time. There are probably four or five times as many tenants who come to an enforced arrangement because of the proceedings that are pending as compared with the actual Orders made by the Judge. Very often the tenant has to go out under circumstances which are extremely harsh, as far as his family needs are concerned. The purpose of the Bill is to limit the door to the proceed. ings and to lessen the number of cases when a solicitor can act. The fact that you give the power here to a youth or young woman of 18 to make an application, means further opportunities for trouble and more occasions for hostility, and it is to lessen those opportunities for trouble as between landlord and tenant that I hope the Government will insist on the stand they have taken.

Sir K. WOOD: This does not bar the door to those proceedings. It only takes away one remedy. He can still employ a solicitor to write a letter.

Mr. FOOT: As a matter of fact, of course, the daughter of the landlord is not entitled to make the application. The hon. Member who suggested that the age should be raised to 25 showed the necessity for the Bill when he said that if alternative accommodation had to be given it meant that you did not get possession at all. That is because the alternative accommodation is so limited.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: That is not what I meant. I meant that the number of possible slips between the time the application is made and the tenant getting alternative accommodation make it impossible.

Mr. FOOT: The hon. Member wishes to make some explanation as to what he has said, but it was admitted by the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Lady-wood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) that if alternative accommodation was insisted upon it practically precluded the landlord from obtaining possession, and amounted almost to an absolute bar. It is not a harsh thing that, if a landlord's son is going to marry, before he gets possession of the house he must make some provision for the tenant he intends to turn out. We do not say he shall not have possession of the house, but it is his business to see that he does not start his married life by turning someone else into the street. Perhaps his married life will not start under the best auspices if it is begun by someone else being turned out. hope the Government will stand by their Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish to assist the Government in getting through their business so I shall not make a long speech, nor shall T press them very strongly, but I want it put on record that in the discussion of these two Amendments the whole question was governed by the decision of the discretion of the County Court Judge as to hardship. It is unfair of the hon. Member to speak of the effect of a young married couple, beginning their married life by creating an injustice by turning people out of their house. That is impossible under the terms of the Bill because the hon. Member is imagining a case where the County
Court Judge is giving an unfair decision. The very basis of the Bill is that the County Court Judge himself should decide on which side of the fence the greater hardship lies. I put it on the ground of public policy. You may have a tenant who is a bachelor, or an elderly married couple without any children. You may have a landlord with a son or daughter who has been engaged for some time and is waiting to get a house in order to be married. The whole question is not that the landlord should have a right to say to any tenant, "Turn out in order to make way for my married son or daughter," but that he may go to the County Court Judge and say, "In this particular case the hardship lies in keeping this young couple unmarried." The benefit to the State in encouraging early marriage is very considerable indeed. We want to see our young people happily and well married. Everyone who knows anything about our country districts, as I do, knows that there are hundreds of cases up and down the country of young people who cannot get married because they cannot get accommodation. I will not go further into it, but one can imagine the position of affairs that arises from that state of things.

Mr. CUMIE: The young people are not the owners of the houses.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Some of them are. There are hundreds of thousands of houses owned by the best class of working men, who have saved and bought them. I am going to ask my hon. Friend not to put the House to the trouble of dividing if the Labour and Liberal parties decide, in face of what I am saying, to resist the Amendment, but I want them to realise that the only point is to give the right to the County Court Judge [Interruption].

Viscount WOLMER: Is the hon. Member in the corner entitled to go on with continuous interruption?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: It is strictly parliamentary. I want to draw attention to the fact that the arguments which are now being used have been repeated six or seven times.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to interrupt unless the Member who is speaking give way.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will not inflict myself further on the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am quite satisfied.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Tomfoolery!

Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled to shout across the floor "tomfoolery" the moment you have given your ruling?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to make such a remark. He must desist.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I at once withdraw if there is any objection taken to the remark, but it is nevertheless true.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the best attitude is to take no notice of a remark of that kind, which I am sure is not shared by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's colleagues. I leave it to the House and to the country to decide this position between the young married couple and the tenant, who may not reasonably be entitled to remain in these premises. All we ask is that the question of reasonable hardship should be determined by the County Court Judge as between the young married couple and, it may be, an elderly couple who have been in the house for many years. You may say you will not have it, you will not trust the County Court Judge. Then let it he so and take your own course.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: I had not intended to speak, but I had a distressing letter a few days ago from a British ex-service man's widow who has two girls at school. She managed to buy a little house with the help of a pension and assistance from a building society. The girls are now old enough to come home, and she cannot get the people, who are Norwegians, to vacate the little room she wants in her house, though she was quite willing to find alternative accommodation. She cannot afford to go to the Court.

Question, "That the word 'married' be there inserted in the Lords Amendment,"put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Lords Amendment:

In page 1, line 24, at end, insert
Provided that in the case of a dwelling-house of which either the tenant or the landlord is an alien who did not serve the British Empire or its Allies in the Great War, if the Court is of opinion that equal hardship would be caused to the tenant by granting as to the landlord by refusing to grant an Order, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, who is a British subject, or, who being an alien, served the British Empire or its Allies in the Great War, shall he preferred by the Court.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House dotl. disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Early in the Debate we were accused of a desire to utilise the Bill for electioneering purposes. This is an Amendment which was put forward by hon. Members opposite on the Report stage, and if ever there was an Amendment with
an electioneering purpose behind it, think this is it. What purpose does it serve? It is either a piece of pure electioneering or it is a confusion of mind,
because hon. Members must have allowed their prejudice to get the better of their judgment. Objection was taken to the Amendment before on what seemed to me to be perfectly good grounds. In the first place, it was a bad principle to attempt to discriminate between one set of residents in the country and another. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members cannot see the obvious reason,
I will not help them, I think it has been customary in this country to give equal treatment to people before the law, whether they are British citizens or aliens. But what
finally disposes of the matter is the argument which I brought before the House when the Bill was under discus-
sion before. I submit that the Amendment could be accepted by no party. Hon. Members opposite had their opportunities last year. I believe an Amendment to this effect was on the Paper, but it was never moved, and had it been moved, they could not have accepted it. I mentioned before the Japanese Treaty of Commerce, and there are numerous other Treaties still in existence with which this Amendanent would conflict. It is, therefore, the duty of the Government to oppose an Amendment which would bring us into confict with existing Treaties with other Powers. I hope, and
I am certain, that the House will confirm the view that it took on the last occasion, and refuse to accept this discrimination between British citizens and aliens resident in this country.

6.0 P.M.

Sir K. WOOD: We have had a
characteristic speech from the Parliamentary Secretary. He suggested that this Amendment, which was moved when the Bill was last. before this House, is an elec-
tioneering Amendment. It is a most extraordinary suggestion, coming from the hon. Member, because I recollect that a few weeks ago the Prime Minister—I
forget the particular festivity in which he was engaged—said that the proceedings on the Rents Bill, which was then before Standing Committee "A," would be used as a sort of electioneering stunt, or words to that effect. On that occasion the Prime Minister was prepared to use those proceedings for electioneering purposes. Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that that sort of thing can apply only to his own party. Whatever view the public may take of an Amendment of this kind, electioneering is not its
primary object. If he. means that from an electioneering point of view this is an
Amendment likely to commend itself to the great majority of the citizens, I think
he is right. I have no doubt that is what he meant to say. He meant that the great majority of the people of this country would favour a proposal of this kind, and I hope that he will not accuse them of blindness or ignorance, but that he will credit them with some sane judgment. I hope also that hon. Members opposite will not say that. they are blinded by any particular hatred. Most men and women will agree that if, in connection with the grave housing shortage, an application were made to the Court, and the County Court Judge came to the conclusion that, in the words of the Amendment
equal hardship would bo caused to the tenant. by granting as to the landlord by refusing to grant an order, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, who is a British subject, or, who being an alien, served the British Empire or its allies in the Great War, shall be preferred by the Court—
Nobody could possibly object to this eminently reasonable suggestion, which cuts across no great principle of English law or justice, I cannot conceive.
The country is in a great difficulty owing to the shortage of housing accommodation, and, surely, no one would say that where the balance of hardship is about equal the British-born subject should not be preferred. What possible objection can be taken to such a course? On the last occasion, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) put forward all sorts of objections, hut neither he nor his friends would face the fundamental principle involved. We heard about the French dressmaker or the Belgian seamstress who would not come within this provision. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any such objection today and he thinks that this Amendment is not drafted in such a way as to cover everybody he would like to cover, we invite Amendments in. order to make it water-tight. I hope we shall Divide on the plain issue that, where the hardship is equal, the person who has been born in this country should, from the point of view of equity alone, he entitled to the first preference.
I am precluded from quoting the statements of emiment members of the Government made in another place, and I will content myself by saying that the view of the Government has been put forward in the following terms by one high authority:
It has been a broad principle that when people are allowed to come and live here they should have the rights which are accorded to a British citizen

Mr. FINNEY: Whose statement is that?

Sir K. WOOD: Ii is a statement of the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. E. BROWN: Where?

Sir K. WOOD: I will inform the hon. Member privately.

Mr. E. BROWN: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read a quotation, and, when challenged, to give the name, and after having given the name, and asked where the statement was made, to say that he will communicate it privately? Supposing that statement were made in another place, would it be in order for the hon. Member to quote the statement?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is perfectly aware of the Rule. He prefaced his remarks by referring to
it. He knows that if it be a quotation from a statement made in another place, it is out of order.

Sir K. WOOD: I fully realised that. It is a most curious suggestion to set up, that aliens should come to this country and share equally all the privileges of citizenship. That is not done in any other country in the world. It is true that there are certain inalienable rights to which aliens are entitled on coming to reside here, but when it comes to a question of housing, I say that, undoubtedly, the British citizen should be preferred. As a last resort, hon. Members who oppose this Amendment. always bring forward the Japanese Treaty. I can refer to the Japanese Treaty, because the Minister himself has quoted it in this House. Article 4 of the Japanese Treaty says:
The Japanese people shall be permitted to own or hire and occupy houses, manufactories, workshops and premises, and to lease land for residential, commercial, industrial and other lawful purposes, in the same manner as native subjects.
How can it be said that this Amendment infringes that portion of the Treaty? On the last occasion that this matter was discussed, the President of the Board of Trade spoke, and I would ask hon. Members to read the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade in which he tried to make out that this Amendment infringed the Treaty. The House is confronted with a- perfectly simple issue. I can understand the hon. and gallant Member for Leith taking up the view, which he is entitled to take, that aliens who came here should he treated in every respect in the same way as British-born subjects, but I totally dissent from that proposition. When there is a scarcity of this kind, and there are a quarter of a million aliens in this country, the very least we can say is that in an equal case of hardship a, British-born subject should be preferred.

Captain BENN: The hon. Member is trying to present our opposition to the Amendment on the lines that. in every respect an alien should be in the same position as a British-born subject. That is not our position. An alien has not a vote in this country, whereas a British subject has a vote. I wonder if the hon. Member has overlooked that fact. Probably that fact accounts to a large extent for an Amendment of this kind. What we
object to is making the nationality of the litigant a consideration in the mind of a Judge. That, we consider, to be hostile, obnoxious and alien to our traditions. The Judge should decide on the merits of the case, and should not ask as to the place of birth of the person who comes before him. The hon. Member asks us to amend the Amendment if we do not like it. He has had sufficient time in which to amend it. It was produced by an ex-Solicitor-General, who was assisted by one of the most distinguished members of the other branch of the law, the hon. Member himself. It went to the other House, where it had the advantage of being framed by those whom we know well, and it was passed there. There is one significant thing to remember, and that is that every Member of the other House who has had judicial experience spoke against the Amendment, irrespective of party. The Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, Lord Darling and Lord Phillimore all spoke against it. It found no support from those people who know what the law is in practice on the Bench.

Sir K. WOOD: In justice to Lord Darling, it should be said that, while he said lie did not understand the Amendment, he also confessed that he did not understand any Rent Restriction Acts at all.

Captain BENN: I do not know whether I should be permitted to go into a general discussion on the Rent Restrictions Act, but it is sufficient to say that the acute intellect of Lord Darling was unable to understand this Amendment. It gives no protection to the ex-service man. The profiteering landlord can turn into the street the widow of the ex-service man who did active service. The man who merely donned khaki could turn out the widow of a man who was killed in the War. This Amendment is put forward as the sort of patriotic flandoodle which is to catch votes. But turn to the actual wording of the Amendment. Take the case of the alien who served the Allies in the War. This Amendment goes out of the way to penalise Americans who did considerable service in the War. They were not Allies; they were associated Powers.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Member could move an Amendment providing for that.

Captain BENN: It is now suggested that I, should move an Amendment to an Amendment which has been excogitated by right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House. It is too late. If, for example, General Pershing is in litigation with a Chinese laundryman who served in the War, the Chinese laundryman has to win the case. The first point is, who are the Allies? General Pershing did not serve the Allies in the War, whereas the Chinese laundryman worked on the roads in some remote part of the War sphere, and in that way served. This Amendment disqualifies the General and gives the case in favour of the Chinese laundryman. A second question is, what is meant by serving in the War? Does it mean persons who wore the uniform or who belonged to the Allied countries? It would be very interesting to get some definition. For example, there are no doubt many Bolshevik commissars who were conscripted, and in that way served in the War. It is proposed from the Tory benches that they should be put in a position of privilege over other people. Monsieur PoincarC never served in the War—what about hats off to France?—and he is put in the position that a sergeant of militia from Panama who served in the War, as the poet has it,
silent upon a peak in Darien,
has a. orivilegea position over him or over any Frenchmen, Belgians or Italians or any of our active intimate Allies who did not happen to serve in the War. If this be the best sort of contribution which right hon. Gentlemen opposite can make it is time for them to devote their attention to some other subject. Why are we, who depend more upon fair treatment in other parts of the world than any other country, who have got the biggest export trade, whose peoples are in closest touch with those of other countries, who have the housing of our own people overseas dependent upon equity in other countries, to be asked, owing to an electioneering stunt of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to jeopardise the position of our people in various parts of the world?

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I wish to put an important point before the Minister in charge. It is said that the Government have to resist this Amendment because if carried it would be in conflict with certain Treaties. The Treaty with Japan is
mentioned. I have great diffidence in giving an opinion on such a point, in the presence of the Attorney-General, but I should be surprised if the Attorney-General were to say that the acceptance of this Amendment would in any way conflict with the wording of the Treaty with Japan. It has been said that there were other Treaties, but it was left in the form of a general statement. It is a very serious and important reason to give for the attitude of the Government, and I think that he ought not have left it there, but should have told us what Treaties he had in mind, and given us an opportunity of seeing whether these Treaties would be an obstacle to the acceptance of this Amendment.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has just made an amusing speech, spoke as if this Amendment, if carried, would be a violation of British principles. That is a complete misunderstanding of the whole position. If it were merely a question of general legislation, and of differentiating between British-born subjects and aliens, there might be a great deal to be said for that view, but this legislation, as all the Debate has shown, arises entirely owing to the fact that we have not in this country sufficient accommodation for the number of people who are trying to live in the country. What we are trying to do by this legislation is to discriminate. It is all discrimination. We are discriminating on the one hand between landlord and tenant, and we have Clauses dealing with the rights of the landlord and his family in exceptional circumstances. We have heard a, lot this afternoon of the decision of the County Court Judge, who, in all these cases, has to decide where the balance of hardship lies. In those circumstances, when we cannot find houses for all our people, we have to choose. and it does appear to me to be an outrageous principle for the Government and my hon and gallant Friend to say that, when we are making that discrimination, we are not to be allowed to say that we will choose the Englishman rather than the foreigner. I do not laiow whether my hon. Friend intends to go to a Division. I feel strongly that if, unfortunately, we are obliged to make a choice, we should make a choice in favour of our own people rather than in favour of foreigners, I do
not care to what class they belong. In the discrimination which is going on, and which has to be undertaken whether we like it or not, they are not entitled to eclual treatment.

Dr. SPERO: I appreciate the patriotic remarks which have been made about ex-service men in reference to this Amendment, but I suggest that this Amendment not only introduces a very difficult complication into the Bill, but marks a definite departure from the traditional practice followed by this country towards foreign nations. Therefore I propose to vote against this Amendment for two reasons, first for the national cause and secondly for what I believe to be the cause of justice. It is true that there are foreign countries which have placed on their Statute books Amendments similar to this, and I am therefore led to believe that the incentive to this Amendment comes from those foreign sources. That is a very serious state of affairs, because we are deliberately attempting to take for our guidance not the British mentality of fairplay and justice but that of the foreigner.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Can the hon. Member give any reason for the statement as to this being initiated from foreign sources?

Dr. SPERO: It is being copied. We have had this afternoon the case of Mexico objecting to the English representative being entitled to a house, because he is a foreigner, and also there is the case of Japan. We are following other countries.

Mr. HERBERT: That has nothing to do with this Amendment.

Dr. SPERO: We are attempting to follow the laws of other countries. From the day we start following instead of leading, this country will start going on the downward path.

Mr. HERBERT: That is not a fact.

Dr. SPERO: It is, and the hon. Gentleman knows that it is a fact.

Mr. HERBERT: Give your authorities.

Dr. SPERO: I have given you Mexico and Japan, and there are various other countries in Europe. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Russia?"] Take the case of an old-established alien who, because
he has been too old or because of some physical disability, was unable to serve in the War, but whose children might have served. That man would be liable to be evicted under this provision by a landlord who was a conscripted British subject, who subsequently deserted, or by a British subject who definitely refused or evaded military service, or by a. British subject who served in the War and who was imprisoned for a severe crime during the War. Where is the justice of that? How can it be fair that a foreigner who, from conviction, has applied to become a British subject many years ago, but who for some unaccountable reason may not have got through—and there are lots of them in that position—should be disqualified in this manner?
A man in my constituency applied seven years ago, and his application has not been granted, yet his son served in the War, and others in a. similar position served in the War. He contributes to the upkeep of hie borough, paying rates and taxes, and contributes to the national fund by paying Income Tax. He may employ people. Yet this man can be turned down by a British subject who was a criminal during the War. This Amendment does not even give discretion to the Court. As I understand the Amendment, preference must be given to a British subject or an alien who has served during the War, however unsatisfactory such service may have been and even although the service may have been later avoided by desertion or some other cause. That is not justice; it is not even fair play. Every place ought to be safe to a person who lives under justice; if it ceases to be safe, justice ceased to exist.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: We have heard characteristic speeches from hon. Members of the Liberal party, who have been indulging in their usual pastime of depreciating anything British, whether British persons or British goods.

Dr. SPERO: We are upholding British tradition.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) devoted half of his speech to an argument that the Amendment was not sufficiently strong, and, as he could not keep up to the earlier level, devoted the other half to a depreciation of British
people. Hon. Members have not really grasped the essential point of the Amendment. The essential point is to decide in two cases of equal hardship. Hon. Members have been endeavouring to construct imaginary cases, in order to point out how unequal a judgment would be in favour of a British subject, and by their very premises they have suggested that the cases are not equal. The Amendment deals only with cases which are equal in hardship. In such cases, when there is absolute equality of hardship, the British subject should have the advantage us against a foreign-born subject. The Amendment is important in view of the Housing Bill, of which we are likely to hear a great deal shortly, for public money will be devoted to the subsidising of houses. What is going to happen? We are going to pay public money for the provision of houses, and if the Amendment is not carried we are going to allow aliens who have not lived in this country or have not found any of the money which goes to the provision of those houses—

Mr. MARCH: What has that to do with this Bill?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: It has a lot to do with this Bill, as I shall show. We on this side of the House look ahead; we do not look at legislation merely from the point of view of day to day consideration. If hon. Members look ahead as to the effect of this Bill, they will realise that they will he subsidising houses for aliens who have not paid in any form for the provision of those houses. Suppose that in 10 years' time there arose the case of a man who was a British subject, who wished to have a house, but was not allowed to have it, although his hardship was equal to that of an alien who was fortunate enough to obtain the house. The relatives of that man would have assisted in the payment of taxes for the provision of the house, but such payment would have no effect whatsoever as against the alien coming in.

Captain BENN: The alien would be one of those who served with the Allies.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: If the hon. and gallant Member does not accept this Amendment.

Captain BENN: The Amendment gives a privileged position to the Chinaman.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I do not think so. It gives a privileged position only to those persons who have fought in the War on the side of the British.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: "Served."

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Those who have served in the War on the side of the British. Therefore, unless this Amendment be carried, we shall not be discriminating fairly between our own people and those aliens who have not only not assisted in the provision of these houses, but did not assist on our side during the War. For that reason I hone that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. MILLS: I want to draw attention to the inconsistencies of the last speaker. When he speaks of looking ahead, he must surely remember that he and his friends had unlimited opportunities in the years that have gone since 1917 to put their proposal on the Statute Book. Apparently the process of looking ahead has been so far reversed that it is only when they have lost all directing voice in the government of the country that they bring forward such an Amendment as this. It is true that last year they tabled an Amendment, hut they did not press it to a Division, and, I believe, did not even move it. That makes it all the more difficult to understand the mentality of hon. Members opposite. I have here a letter from a Government Department. It concerns a man who is an alien. He was born four months before he came to this country 72 years ago. He served for 26 years in the British Army. Three of his sons fought in the War. He is not a British subject., although he fought in two campaigns with the British Army. If this kind of Amendment be passe ii. one can see what absurdities would result. There is general resentment on this side of the House at the attitude taken up by a party which had an opportunity of placing this proposal on the Statute Book at a time when it was more needed even than now. Having missed its opportunity, obviously deliberately, it ill becomes that party to obstruct the proceedings of the House by bringing forward such a proposal now, and, in doing so, to attribute motives to those who oppose them as being opposed to the best interests of British people.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I regret that the last speaker did not explain to the House how it was that in the case he referred to an alien served 26 years in the British Army. It is a case which calls for a little explanation before we can attach much weight to it.

Mr. MILLS: I can let the hon. Member have the correspondence, and he can see for himself.

Mr. HERBERT: That does not answer the point as to how an alien can properly serve in the British Army, and serve for 26 years. We want to know how he managed to do it if he was an alien.

Mr. MILLS: I can assure the hon. Member that his colleagues on the Front Bench opposite, especially the right hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman), who was then Home Secretary, had this case under consideration, and admitted the fact that the man had enlisted under a name which sounded British, but which upon examination was found not to be British. The man then applied to have his real French name put upon the papers of his regiment, and his application was refused. Because of that refusal the man has never yet been allowed the status of a British citizen.

Mr. HERBERT: Now we have the whole point. The hon. Member is trying to base his case on the single, specific instance of a man who did a thing which be had no business to do by serving under false pretences. He is trying to influence the House by such a case. That is only a slightly exaggerated sample of the other speeches against the Amendment from the opposite side. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Henn) made a most amusing speech, and put up a most ridiculous case that might result from the passing of the Amendment. He entirely overlooked the fact that the alien who had served with Great Britain or Britain's Allies was in this particular case brought, in as a sort of addition to, and given the same privileges which we want to give to, British subjects. In this matter dealing with the alien is a very small point indeed compared with what we want. to do for our own British subjects. If in trying to do that for British subjects we are prepared to give the same privileges to a certain class of people who have fought with us or with our Allies in the War, the fact that the
arrangement is not absolutely perfect and that it might possibly result in some hardship in the case of General Pershing, if he came here and lived in a house which came within this Bill—that is hardly a reason for saying that, because there might be ridiculous cases, the Briton must not have the first chance in such cases. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Dr. Spero) is not present. He has accused those who were responsible for this Amendment of putting forward a proposal which has been inspired from abroad. I protest strongly against an accusation of that sort being made without the slightest shadow of truth in it. When the hon. Member was challenged, all that he could say was that in some cases foreign countries had done things which have been hard on British subjects. To suggest for a moment that. this Amendment, calculated in cases of equal hardship to give a choice to our own people, is initiated from abroad, is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Amendment by showing the weakness of the arguments adduced against it. I hope that the House will insist on the Amendment.

Sir J. SIMON: It is very easy to make a strong case by taking extreme instances in this matter on one side or the other, but I think there is a prevailing opinion—a very natural and proper opinion—in the House that, as long as we preserve the established principles of British law, it is perfectly proper to have regard to the fact that you may have the case of someone before you who has served the country well, while on the other hand you may have before you someone who has no such claim. That is perfectly natural, but what is surprising to me is that those who have taken part in this Debate hitherto do not appear to realise—I do not think the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government showed the slightest appreciation of the fact—that if we adopt and place on the Statute Book a provision of this sort, we are as a matter of fact completely departing from an established British principle. It may be quite Tight to do so, but if that ne the real character of this proposal, it has to be considered not by reference to special cases but from a much wider point of view. The House will excuse me for pointing out what has not yet been pointed out in this Debate,
that ever since 1870 there has existed in our Statute law, as one of the fundamental principles of British institutions, a provision that real and personal property of every description may be taken, acquired, held and disposed of by an alien in the same manner in all respects as by a natural-born British subject. That has been a fundamental principle of British law during the whole of my lifetime.
Of course, a British subject may have a vote while aliens have not votes, and that, no doubt, is calculated to influence the judgments of people sometimes, but when we come to enjeyment of private rights in this country, with one single statutory exception the alien stands in exactly the same position as the British subject. The one exception is that an alien cannot own a British ship, and that is expressly provided for by statute. Is it to he said at this time of day to the British House of Commons, the custodian of British institutions and privileges, that, notwithstanding this law, which we have, applied in good times and bad times—I quite agree very generously—that in matters of private property and private rights the alien stands in the same position as the British subject, we should adopt this proposal? If we do so, we depart from a tradition which has existed for 50 years and that is rather a serious thing. I think this particular Amendment can he riddled with criticism as regards its terms. In the first place, its actual effect would be of the most trifling character. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) began his speech by lecturing an hon. Member on this side of the House who did not, he said, understand what the Amendment was about. The hon. and gallant Member will excuse me for saying that I did not perceive, in the course of his speech, any clear indication that Ine himself understood it. May I suggest in all humility and subject to correction that, if this Amendment be not introduced, there will be a question of comparing hardships as between A and B, and the problem for the County Court Judge will be whether greater hardship may be caused to one side or to the other.
For all practical purposes that will always be the question to be solved,
whether we carry the Amendment or not. This Amendment, however, proceeds to introduce a metaphysical subtlety which I should like to see the Judges dealing with in practice. The Judges are asked to assume that the scale is evenly balanced, so nicely balanced that no one can determine which is the heavier and which is the lighter side, and the County Court Judge, with 50 or 60 other things to do on the same day, has to address his mind to this nice metaphysical calculation, and when he has done so he is asked to enter into a further inquiry—on which, I suppose, he will be allowed to call evidence—as to whether or not a gentleman who has a suspicious name is or is not an alien. Such a person naturally will not say that he is an alien. How, then, is it to be proved? Is it proposed that the Judge should adjourn the Court and that a question should be put in the House of Commons to the Home Secretary? English law knows nothing whatever in a Court of Justice about the difference between A and B, if one is a British subject and the other is not. No litigant in a British Court, thank Heavens, has to begin by saying, "I am a British subject and the other fellow is an alien." No Judge would allow such a declaration to be made. The Judge would tell the British subject who made such a declaration that if he were a real British subject he ought to know that he belonged to a country Which did not draw such distinctions. [Laughter.]An hon. Gentleman opposite laughs, but surely he knows enough about the law to know that in a British Court of Law it does not matter twopence whether a litigant is an alien or a British subject; Tic will get the same law, whichever he is. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge said that we who sit in this part of the House were engaged in our characteristic exercise of depreciating British institutions.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I said hon. Members there depreciated everything British.

Sir J. SIMON: Possibly the hon. and gallant Member does not regard the glorious tradition of British law—which is the admiration of the whole world as to the way in which we endeavour to do equal justice to all—as any portion of the British traditions of which he is proud
I am not ashamed to say that I should require to have a very plain case made out before I should think it right to depart from a principle which has been affirmed and applauded by people of all parties in this House for generations in order to introduce this pettifogging Amendment. It is easy to show that the actual application of it would be trumpery and ridiculous to a degree. It is perfectly legitimate to say that some people are enthusiastic for it because they think it has electioneering value. I am quite prepared to take the risk in that respect, and, for my part, I urge the House of Commons in all seriousness, apart altogether from questions of party and of electioneering, not to accept this proposal. Do not let us make an exhibition of ourselves by pretending we do not value and rely upon a principle which has stood on the Statute Book since 1870, the principle that an alien who is behaving himself in this country is assured under the British law in any court of justice of exactly the same treatment as a British subject.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There have been two speeches of outstanding importance from the benches opposite during this Debate, but the Government have been rather silent on the point. The two speeches to which I refer, and which doubtless influenced the House greatly, were made by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and they presented very different arguments. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith seemed to hope to get rid of the Amendment by pouring ridicule upon it, and he quoted every hard case imaginable. I am not sure whether we had the cases of the French dressmaker or the Bolshevik commissar, but I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had probably been studying the speech made by Lord Haldane, in another place and had found some such useful references there. Whether it is the Bolshevik commissar or the French dressmaker or the Chinese laundryman, I wish to get at the main principle involved in this Amendment. Anybody even half as clever as the hon. and gallant Gentleman could riddle an Amendment of this kind in that manner—that is probably why the Government allowed the hon. and gallant Member to
do their work for them—and after all, one does not need to be very clever to be able to make out exceptions, ridiculous exceptions if you like, but the real point concerns the principle which we are defending.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last based his speech on much broader grounds than the niggling points put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith which do not matter if the principle of the Amendment is right. if it is right that we should make an alteration here and now in the public law which Britain has enjoyed for many years, then the proper plan is to help us to make that Amendment rather than to pour ridicule upon the proposal as the hon. and gallant Member for Leith did. General Pershing is not likely to inhabit a house affected by the Rent Restrictions Act, but I am not at, all sure that for many purposes Americans cannot be regarded as Allies, and if the hon. and gallant Mem ber is so particular the words "associated powers" could be put in. The hon. and gallant Gentleman omitted one important fact. He quoted a Noble Lord who spoke against the Amendment in another place (Lord Darling), but omitted to mention that Lord Darling did Lot, vote against the Amendment in the other place.

Captain BENN: For what reason?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: For two reasons.

Sir J. SIMON: There was no division!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: He did not divide against it. I will tell the House the reason why, and I have the greatest sympathy with the Noble Lord. It was because he would not be associated with the people who would be voting against it.

Captain BENN: That is not a reason favour of the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is why I am in sympathy with the Noble Lord, who would not be seen in the Lobby with the people voting against this Amendment. I would not be seen in the. Lobby with them either. A much more important case against the Amendment is that which has been put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last. He dealt with the questions on the broad principles of English law and raised the whole tone of the
Debate by his speech. He did not quote the Japanese Treaty as I expected him to do, but I am going to submit that the Japanese Treaty which was quoted in another place is no argument against the Amendment. The Japanese Treaty is governed by the laws of this country. The Japanese Treaty or any other Treaty—because they are all the same in this respect—are all subject to the law of Great Britain for the time being. Any Japanese or any other subject of a foreign power who comes here is bound to abide by such laws as we in our wisdom make for the regulation of this country.

Sir J. SIMON: If the right hon. Gentleman has a copy of the Treaty there. he can tell me whether I am right in saying that we covenanted that Japanese subjects in this country should enjoy a certain standard of privilege.

7.0 P.M.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Treaty is quite clear, and was quoted by Lord Haldane in another place. This does not apply to the Japanese alone and I am not singling them out but it applies to all Treaties. It says that Japanese
shall be permitted to own or hire and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses, shops and premises which may be necessary for them and to lease land for residential, commercial, industrial and other lawful purposes in the same manner as a native subject.
The important point is that, if we look at another Article, we find that they are all subject to the laws of the country:
The subjects or citizens of each of the high contracting parties who shall conform themselves to the laws of the country, etc.
We are here now making laws. Parliament is sovereign, and we are entitled to make laws for the regulation of our own country. T am not running away from the position put before us by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley. The time has come to amend the law with regard to aliens in this country. They have increased so enormously Everybody knows that there are certain districts in the central parts of London and the East. End of London—

Mr. LANSBURY: Also Park Lane and Windsor.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: —where the competition for working-class houses is made very severe by the enormous number
of aliens swarming in. I am prepared to say, in spite of the Act referred to by the right. hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), which has been in existence since 1870, the time has come to reconsider the whole position of this country in regard to aliens. We cannot deal with the whole question here and now in this Bill. We are, however, dealing with a Bill where hardship on somebody is presupposed because there are not enough houses to go round. Either an English tenant is to be turned out by an alien landlord, or an alien tenant is to be turned ont by an English landlord. When the County Court, Judge is deciding on which side is the greater hardship, the question of whether a man is an alien or not will not first of all arise. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley to talk about making metaphysical calculations. If he were a County Court Judge he would have no difficulty in arriving at a decision.

Sir J. SIMON: Is it then the considered view of the right hon. Member, now speaking for his party, that if there were greater hardship in excluding the alien, the alien ought to have the house?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not say that. The. right hon. and learned Member is trying to confuse me with metaphysical subtleties. I have known him too long to fall into that trap. If he will excuse my saying so, perhaps I have more experience of County Court work than he has. The question of hardship is very difficult to decide. A County Court Judge might very well say, "After all, there is hardship whichever way I decide. I think, on the whole, if Parliament gave me permission, I should just tip the balance in favour of the Englishman who has fought in the War rather than in favour of the alien who did not fight." That is a principle which I am prepared to support on any platform. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) brought forward ridiculous arguments. Let me put one case of possible hardship. An Englishman, say, fought in the War, was very badly wounded and earned the V.C. He has got a wife and family dependent on him. An alien landlord tries to turn him out. There is equal hardship in the mind of the County Court. Judge, and in consider
ing the case, the Judge says, "Yes, the landlord is quite a good alien. True he did not fight in the War—"

Mr. LEIF JONES: The County Court Judge does not know up to that point that the landlord is an alien.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Let us take it that he does know. The Judge would consider it hard lines to turn out the Englishman, and he would take into account that the other man, the landlord, has no War service.

Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: Where does it say that in the Amendment?

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: The Amendment refers to the tenant or the landlord
who did not serve the British Empire or its Allies in the Great War.

Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: The right hon. Gentleman said "fought" in the War.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May not a British subject fight in the War?

Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: A British subject may stick to the point. You have said "an Englishman who has fought in the War." I say the Amendment says nothing of that sort.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am taking the case of an Englislunan who has fought in the War, who is going to be turned out by an alien landlord.

Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: You are adopting a metaphysical subtlety.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am taking the hypothetical case of a summons to turn an Englishman out of a house. He proves that he has served in the War. I am prepared quite definitely to give to the County Court Judge the right, in a case of that kind, to say. "After all, it is a case of hardship on either side. Matters are about equal. It is difficult to make up my mind, but I will give the house tit) the man who fought in the War, rather than to an alien who did not fight." That is the principle embodied in this Clause. It may need some amendment, but that can easily be made in another place. When it was being debated in another place, an offer was made to the Government to make the Amendment clear, and I, repeat that offer to the Government now.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: What about a special constable?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A special constable is an Englishman.

Mr. LANSBURY: Or a Welshman.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A special constable is a British subject. There the County Court Judge should have the right to tilt the scales in favour of the British subject rather than in favour of the alien. That is the principle I am not ashamed of advocating. I do not mind making an inroad of this nature on the law of the land, and I should like to see it carried. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley referred to the equality of treatment received by aliens and British-born subjects under the law. He has forgotten that in criminal law, a man who is an alien is in a much worse position than the British subject, for if he be found guilty he can be kicked out of the country at. the discretion of the magistrate. That is a distinct difference which is already made between the alien and the British subject. We do impose penalties on the alien which we do not impose on the British subject. That is a change made in the law of the last few years which I strongly support. I have not the slightest doubt whatever that we are taking the right course in supporting this Amendment., and I hope it will be carried.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I really did not intend to say anything more about this Amendment, and I should not have done so if we on these benches had not been rather twitted with not having taken up a greater proportion of the time of the House in discussing this Amendment. I did not believe, and could not believe, that the Opposition really thought there was the slightest intention on the part. of this House to pass this Amendment. I could not believe that the Front Opposition Bench would allow that Amendment to come before the House again in that form, if they had the slightest hope or belief that this House would ever pass it. We often hear criticisms of Amendments introduced from this side of the House. I propose to take this one home as an example of what our worst critics put forward as a suitable Amendment, to alter the whole law of this country. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks)— and no doubt he speaks full authority—that hon. Members opposite think it is time that the law of this country should be altered in a most vital particular. In my view, and in the view, I believe, of the majority of this House, this is not the way to alter one of the most fundamental principles of our law. The right hon. Gentleman is a Member of the same profession as that to which I belong, and I am sure lie will agree with me that un to this moment no self-respecting advocate in any court of justice would refer to any distinction at all between an alien and an Englishman, and if he were to do so, no Judge on the Bench would allow him to proceed. It would be not only illegitimate to allow this Amendment to miss, but a County Court Judge would refuse to take such a point into consideration. There is not a member of the legal profession who would not be ashamed, even if this Amendment were passed, to get up in Court and make the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman desires should be made.
I do venture to hope, naw my right hon. Friend has asked some one from the Front Bench to express a view, that the House will really pronounce a decision on this. For nearly 50 years a Conservative Government has had the power of altering this law. It has been sitting on these benches for years and years, but it has never dared to alter that law. It would never dream of doing it. Now, when we are in power for the first time, they put forward an Amendment which is not English, which means nothing. which conveys nothing to a single mind in this House. It is slipped in as a fundamental alteration in our law, and then some hon. Gentlemen are surprised because criticism is made that it is merely for electioneering purposes. What else could it have been? Is there any hon. Member who could explain what it means? I should have thought it was clear to the whole House that this was the result of a consultation which took place on the benches opposite. They no doubt said: "We will divide on this; it will be defeated, but it will look well, and we shall be able to say that we stood up for the Britisher against the alien."[Interruption. ] I thought, so. That was the whole motive. They said: "We will not take the trouble to alter it; we will not put it in intelligible language. There is not a
chance of it passing. But it will look very well." One hon. Member—I forget who it was—asked me a question about the treaties. There is a whole series of treaties, -which must have been known to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. I have extracts from them here. Treaties with Greece, Rumania, and a great many other countries, all contain a Clause, the substance of which I will read:
The subjects or citizens of each of the high contracting parties who shall conform themselves to the laws of the country…shall not be subject in respect of their persons, or property…
I leave out the words which do not matter—
nor in respect of their commerce or industry to any taxes, whether general or local, or to imposts or obligations of any kind whatever other or greater than those which are or may be imposed upon native subjects or citizens.
Is it any good anyone asking me whether in law this Amendment may or may not impinge upon that? I know perfectly well that the countries who are parties to these treaties would say that it did.

Surely one does not want to have legal arguments and discussions with every country in the world as to whether we have wronged them or not, There is not a single man who would not say that the Treaty had given him a right which had been interfered with by what is proposed by the Amendment. I will go further, and say with confidence that I do not believe any British Government would dare to put that Amendment on the Statute Book. I do not believe anyone would do it. They would know that it must cause endless trouble. It would strike at the very root of the fundamental law of this country. I protest that sce much time should have been taken up with this discussion and that the Government should have been twitted because it did not take up more time, when everyone knew there was not the faintest chance of this being allowed to be inserted in the Bill.

Question put, "That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 135.

Division No. 92.]
AYES.
[7.16 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Duncan, C.
Hindle, F.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hoffman, P. C.


Alden, Percy
Egan, W. H.
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
England, Colonel A.
Hudson, J. H.


Ammon, Charles George
Falconer, J.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Fletcher, Lieut.-Commander R. T. H.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Ayles, W. H,
Foot, Isaac
Jewson, Dorothea


Baker, Walter
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)


Barnes, A.
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Batey, Joseph
Gilbert, James Daniel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Gillett, George M.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd).


Birkett, W. N.
Gorman, William
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)


Black, J. W.
Gosling, Harry
Kay, Sir R. Newbald


Bonwick, A.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Keens, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Kennedy, T.


Briant, Frank
Greenall, T.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Broad, F. A.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Kenyon, Barnet


Bromfield, William
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kirkwood, D.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lansbury, George


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Groves, T.
Laverack, F. J.


Brunner, Sir J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Law, A.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lawson, John James


Church, Major A. G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Leach, W.


Clarke, A.
Hardie, George D.
Lee, F.


Climie, R.
Harney, E. A.
Lessing, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Livingstone, A. M.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Harris, Percy A.
Lcverseed, J. F.


Costello, L. W. J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Lowth, T.


Cove, W. G.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Lunn, William


Crittall, V. G.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
McCrae, Sir George


Darbishire, C. W.
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Haycock, A. W.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hayes, John Henry
McEntee, V. L.


Dickson, T.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Macfadyen, E.


Dodds, S. R.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Mackinder, W.


Dukes C.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Maden, H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


March, S.
Ritson, J.
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Thurtle, E.


Marley, James
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Tinker, John Joseph


Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Robertson, T. A.
Tout, W. J.


Maxton, James
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Romeril, H. G.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Middleton, G.
Royce, William Stapleton
Viant, S. P.


Mills, J. E.
Royle, C.
Vivian, H.


Mond, H.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Montague, Frederick
Scurr, John
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Morris, R. H.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sexton, James
Warne, G. H.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Moslay, Oswald
Sherwood, George Henry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Moulton, Major Fletcher
Simon, E. D.(Manchester,Withington)
Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)


Naylor, T. E.
Simon, lit. Hon. Sir John
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Nichol, Robert
Simpson, J. Hope
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


O'Grady, Captain James
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Weir, L. M.


Oliver, George Harold
Smillie, Robert
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, W.


Owen, Major G.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Wignall, James


Paling, W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snell, Harry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Perry, S. F.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Spence, R.
Williams, Maj. A.S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)


Phillipps, Vivian
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Stamford, T. W.
Willison, H.


Potts, John S.
Starmer, Sir Charles
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Pringle, W. M. R.
Stephen, Campbell
Windsor, Walter


Purcell, A. A.
Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees)
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Raffan, P. W.
Stranger, Innes Harold
Wintringham, Margaret


Raffety, F. W.
Sturrock, J. Leng
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Raynes, W. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wright, W.


Rea, W. Russell
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)



Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Richards, R.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Mr. spoor and Mr. Frederick Hall.


NOES.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)
Foreatier-Walker, L.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gates, Percy
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Becker, Harry
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pennefather, Sir John


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Penny, Frederick George


Bellairt, Commander Carlyon W.
Guinness, Lieut. Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Berry, Sir George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perring, William George


Bourne, Captain R. C.
Harland, A.
Phillipson, Mabel


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Raine, W.


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Remnant, Sir James


Bullock, Captain M.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Burman, J. B.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northn.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hughes, Collingwood
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Huntingfield, Lord
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Savery, S. S.


Cope, Major William
Kindersley, Major G. M
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lamb. J. Q.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shepperson, E. W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacDonald, R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Deans, Richard Storry
McLean, Major A.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Dixey, A. C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stanley, Lord


Eden, Captain Anthony
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Steel, Samuel Strang


Edmondson, Major A. J
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Elliot, Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Elveden, Viscount
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Meller, R. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Warrender, Sir Victor




Whelar, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.
Wolmer, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Major Hennessy and Captain


Wise, Sir Fredric
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Douglas King.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—("Application of Act to pending proceedings.")

Lords Amendments.—In page 1, line 26, after the word "Act" insert the words "but not executed."

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of this Clause is to deal with any proceedings that may have taken place between the Second Reading of the Bill and its passing into law. Up till now I believe this is the only part of the Bill that has in any sense been operative. It is quite clear that if there be any delay and any further consideration of the. matter it will open the door again for a further flow of evictions, and will cause unsettlement to a large number of people. I hope therefore that the House, which did not divide on this question when the Bill was in Committee or on the Report stage, will accept my Motion.

Remaining Lords Amendments disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill."—[Mr. A. Greenwood. ]

Committee nominated of Mr. A. Greenwood, the Attorney-General, Sir W. Joynson-Hicks, Mr. E. D. Simon and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. A. Greenwood. ]

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported later, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. A. Greenwood. ]

Orders of the Day — LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.

As amended (in. the Standing Committee) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Particulars to be supplied by licence-holders.)

it shall be the duty of the proprietor of any omnibus when applying for a licence,
or for the renewal of a licence, to provide any form of transport service in the London Traffic Area to supply to the Minister on such form as the Minister may determine full details of any agreement, written or verbal, for the control by loan, agreement, shareholding, or interlocking directorship, or otherwise of his business by any other company or person, and full particulars as to his holding or beneficial interest in the stocks, shares, or securities in the business of any company engaged in the manufacture or supply of vehicles, plant, equipment, or requisites for any such service.
Failure to supply such details, or knowingly to supply false or misleading details, will render the proprietor or the responsible officer of any company providing any form of transport on the London area on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds and the cancellation of his licence.—[Mr. P. Harris. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I very much regret the absence of the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Franklin), whose. name is coupled with my own as sponsors for this Clause, remembering, as we all do, the very great interest he has displayed in this particular problem and his endeavours to get words to achieve the purpose aimed at in this new Clause. May I draw the attention of the House to the terms of Clause 7 of this Bill? There the Minister is given immense powers to deal out very great privileges. Under this Bill, at any rate in respect to certain streets, the Minister will have power to give away great franchises for the user of the streets to certain privileged companies. It is a very curious thing in London traffic that in the last three years there has been a great manipulation in the various companies that have attempted to supply the needs. of the travelling public and to carry people to and from their work. These manipulations have tended gradually to form what is, if not complete, something like a Combine. Ten years ago there was free competition amongst a great number of companies offering travelling facilities.
If hon. Members who are familiar with London will carry their minds back, they will remember that there were a great number of omnibus companies. I remem-
ber, before the War, the London General Omnibus Company, the Vanguard Cornpany, the London Road Car Company, and a great number of other companies, but gradually one predominant company has bought up the others. The same thing has been going on in reference to tramways. Outside the municipal tramways, the tramways in the outer ring of London, especially the United Tramways, have come under exactly the same management as the London General Omnibus Company. The same process is going on with the Underground Railways, and the Tubes and the District Railway have gradually been brought under one board of directors. If it is not the same board, the same controlling influence manages the District Railway and the Tubes as manages the company tramways and the great majority of omnibuses. This high finance is very complex and peculiar in its workings. We are not quite sure how many companies come under the control, direct or indirect, of the Combine. On some omnibuses I see the word "General," and other omnibuses are known as the "British," The ordinary traveller may think. if he hoards a "British," that he is going on an omnibus outside the Combine, but, as far as my inquiries take rue, the omnibuses known as the "British" omnibuses are under exactly the same management and control as the. London General omnibuses. I am not quite sure in regard to Tilling's. We are led to believe that. it is an independent company, but, as far as I can find out, it has a working agreement. Whether the Combine own shares or have any influence over the managemen, I am not in a position to say.
Before this Bill was introduced that was purely a private matter. The attempt to get complete control under one board of management over the traffic facilities of London is a very serious thing if you are going to have private management of the traffic system, because the one security that the public gets of good service and low fares is competition, and, as far as one can see, that competition is gradually disappearing from the streets of London. This new Clause aims at preventing the Minister working in the dark. We want to put the Minister in the position of knowing who is included in the companies who get
these franchises, if they are independent organisations, or if they are really under the control, directly or indirectly, of a combine. Further, mixed up with the ownership of motor omnibuses, there is the construction, both of the chassis and of the body of the omnibus. There are two great construction companies in London, of which the better known is the Straker-Squire Company. I want to be perfectly fair to the Combine, The great bulk of the older buses, I believe, were manufactured by the Straker-Squire Company, but the Traffic Combine then started to construct their own chassis, and now there is on the edge of London a very large construction company manufacturing the chassis and bodies of the new type of omnibus, which is, I understand, almost entirely owned and controlled by the same Combine that controls the greater number of omnibuses that ply for hire in the streets of London. The Straker-Squire Company met this new development by starting a great number of individual omnibuses, and I am told—I may be wrong—that these so-called independent omnibuses are not quite so independent as they would have us to believe, but are largely organised, financed and manipulated by the disappointed Straker-Squire Company, which is no longer constructing omnibuses for the Combine.
Therefore, if my facts are correct—and I do not for a moment suggest that I am in a position to know what exactly is the whole truth of the matter—you have, really, two highly organised combines in being. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport might believe that he was giving a franchise to ply for hire on a particular street to one, two, or three omnibuses, when, as a matter of fact, he would he giving that franchise to a powerful construction company behind the owners of the omnibuses, and the same, of course, applies to the London General Omnibus Company and the Traffic Combine behind them. If they have these big works making the chassis and bodies, and making profits out of doing so, although their balance sheet in regard to plying for hire in the streets might actually show a loss, that, of course, might be used, when it comes to fixing the fares, for having them fixed too high, because the chassis and the body of the omnibus had been charged up to
the omnibus company at far too high a figure. All that we want to do is to protect the public.
There is another new Clause on the Paper ("Particulars as to relations of transport associations "), standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Hain, South (Mr. Barnes) and other hon. Members. The object of that Clause is the same as mine, but my Clause aims at brevity and conciseness. I think it is very undesirable to have too complex Clauses in Bills, because they inevitably lead to litigation and confusion in the ordinary lay mind. If my right hon. Friend prefers the wording of the second Clause, I am quite prepared to withdraw mine in its favour, except that, when this second Clause came before the Committee, the Minister voted against it, and was not prepared to accept it. I have aimed to put my Clause in such a form as may be acceptable to the Government, simple, concise and intelligible to all the interests concerned, of which there are a great number. We are going to give away a very valuable franchise, and we ought to know, when these franchises are given away, to whom they are to be given, whether they are being given to a number of small companies independent of one another, or to a camouflaged combine working through a lot of small companies. This kind of business is new to this country. It is American in conception. It is the inevitable result of trying to manipulate small companies and form a combine. Now we are faced with the possibility of the Government strengthening the position of the Traffic Combine., by giving them permanently, or at any rate for a series of years, these powers, and if we are going to prevent the scandals that undoubtedly take place in America, and the unsatisfactory interlocking of directorships and inter-working of companies, some Clause of this kind is absolutely necessary.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to second the Motion.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) is not quite right in saying that I opposed this Clause in Committee. I said that I agreed with the principle, but that I
was very anxious not to overload the Bill. I felt that there was sufficient power already in the Bill without inserting this Clause, and that if such a, Clause were necessary, it should be done by separate legislation. For that reason I abstained from voting, and left the matter to the Committee. I propose to do the same thing to-night, if I may, not upon this Clause, but on the second Clause, that standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes), which has been mentioned already. It is the identical Clause which was discussed in Committee, and is the one upon which I should like to take the opinion of the House, as to whether or not they think a, matter of this kind should be dealt with in this Bill. I do not propose to vote, but to leave it to the House, and if the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green will withdraw his Clause, and allow the other one to be discussed, I think that would be a very much better course to take. Under those circumstances, we could take the opinion of the House on the next Clause.

Mr. HARRIS: On the understanding—

Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I should like to put to the Minister whether it is not his duty to give us some guidance on this matter. As it is, he has put us in an amazing position.

Mr. GOSLING: The position I took up before was that, if you take my advice, the Bill does not need this Clause. The Bill is sufficient without it. If you want to introduce this principle, I think we should deal with all combines at the same time, and introduce legislation on the subject to enable us to get this information from them, but if the House feel that in this particular case this information should be obtained, the way to obtain it which I should prefer is under the Clause in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham, South.

Captain Viscount CURZON: This is a Bill to deal with London traffic, and it seems to me that the opportunity is being seized upon by certain hon. Members opposite to try to use it as a sort of antitrust legislation. I have every sympathy with their desires, in so far as they express them, but I would submit that a London Traffic Bill is hardly the vehicle.
which should be chosen in order to get anti-trust legislation through this House. Would it not be better, if we are going to deal with trusts and combines, as foreshadowed in the great speech made by the Prime Minister at the Albert Hall, some time ago, which, so far, has not been translated into action on the part of the Socialist Government, would it not be better, if we are going to embark on antitrust legislation, to do it thoroughly, and know where we are, and not try to wriggle through a little bit of anti-trust legislation by this Bill. The Minister has advised us, I understand, that this Clause is unnecessary. I submit that the House should be content with that advice. We had a long discussion about this in Committee. First of all, it was passed, then amended, and then, when the Clause was put to the Committee, it was turned down. That shows that the Committee had doubt as to the advisability of embodying such a provision in the Bill. It may be that such information is necessary, but I submit that such a Clause as this or the following Clause may be a hindrance rather than a help in securing what, I am sure, is the real desire of hon. Members who have put down these new Clauses, namely, to deal with trusts and combines.
With regard to the particular matter of the London streets, the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) stated that the effect of the present state of affairs was that there were two combines. That is really not quite fair. I am sure he does not wish to mislead the House, but there are, in addition to the London General Omnibus Company, a number of omnibuses on the streets, probably indirectly through the activities of the Straker-Squire Company, but they were not all put on the streets by that means. I am in touch with a certain number of small omnibus owners who are able to run omnibuses on the streets, and are not financed by the Straker-Squire Company. It is all very well to impose obligations, and pains and penalties when you are dealing with such a large combine as the Landon General Omnibus Company or the Straker-Squire Company. They have a large secretarial staff, but the small omnibus owner really has, not the staff to deal with all these things. You are going to saddle him with all sorts of obligations, and with [...]enalties
if those obligations are not carried out, either from some inadvertence or some other reason. I do not think that is really going to help to solve the question of London traffic. I think that the more small omnibus owners we Call get on the streets the better. I agree with the hon. Member that the more competition we can have, at any rate in theory, the better it is. What we all want to ensure in this Bill is that, while getting more competition, it shall be fair competition. Therefore, I hope these two new Clauses will not be pressed to a Division. We had a long discussion about the matter, and I hope the House will rest content with the statement of the Minister of Transport, and not overload the Bill.

Mr. PRINGLE: I agree with the Noble Lord that everything should be done to encourage the small omnibus owners, and I am rather surprised that he should object to this particular Clause. This is not a Clause which places extensive obligations upon them, nor does it render them liable to any very severe penalties. I can understand objection being taken to the new Clause which follows, but if the noble Lord had read the Clause of my hon. Friend, he would see that what is asked of an applicant for a licence is a very limited amount of information, and the object is simply to ascertain whether the ostensible applicant is really an independent omnibus owner, or is in the hands of a combine. As it is limited to these details, I regret very much that the Minister has not decided to extend favourable consideration to this particular Clause. I really cannot understand his attitude. I can understand exception being taken to the multiplicity of detail in the next Clause. In these circumstances, it does seem a very strange thing that he should prefer a decision to be taken on the second Clause, to which more objection can be raised. The Noble Lord, for example, has made a strong case against the second Clause, but the case which he has made is not a case against the Clause under discussion.
I think the Minister might have told the House why he preferred the discussion to be taken on the second Clause. What are the characteristics of the second Clause that Tender it less open to objection? We are aware that the second Clause has already been discussed in Committee, and that the Minister gave
such guidance as he could to the Committee, although he felt himself unable to vote upon it, and the Committee decided adversely. In view of that advice, and the decision of the Committee, my bon. Friend thought the right thing to do was to put down a Clause which carries out the purpose the Committee had in view, without being open to the objections then raised. Here we have a proposal the object of which is undoubtedly sound. It is to enable the Minister to ascertain whether, in the case of an application for a licence, the applicant is an independent owner or is in the hands of a, combine. It is merely to prevent the whole of the omnibus traffic in London getting into the hands of a single combine. The Minister says he has powers to do that already. I am rather surprised that he should make that assertion. It would be well if he would indicate any provisions in the Bill that would enable him to do it. I submit he will not be able to obtain the necessary information, and if he has not the necessary information as to the financial interests concerned, I cannot see how he can prevent this combine from obtaining a complete monopoly. The sole object of this new Clause is to see that in the use of the powers conferred on the Minister he should act in such a way as to preserve, to as large an extent as possible, competition. That seems to me to be the object of all parties in the House. The Minister has given no ground for rejecting this Clause. He has not indicated a single particular suggested in this Clause which is objectionable, or which would cause any trouble to anybody. All the information which it would provide for the Minister would he to his advantage in exercising his powers. I am, therefore, surprised he should not have given a clearer indication to the House of his objection, and in particular that he should have preferred a Clause, which has already been rejected, rather than a new Clause which is not open to the objections raised before.

Colonel ASHLEY: I confess I am in rather a difficulty here, because I really do not understand what happens when the Minister has got these details. The new Clause says:
It shall be the duty of the proprietor of any omnibus, when applying for a licence, or for the renewal of a licence,
to supply certain details to the Minister. I really do not follow what is the object of the Clause. When the Minister has got the information, what is he to do with it? I think those who are moving this Clause should give some further information as to what is in their mind, because, so far as I can see, the Clause will have no effect, except that the Minister would have certain information supplied, which would then be pigeon-holed.

Mr. BARNES: I understand it will suit the convenience of the House if I explain the next Clause which stands in my name, so as to avoid a double discussion. Reference has been made to the fact that the clause which I had the privilege of moving in Committee was rejected, but the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) evidently has not followed the whole of the proceedings of the Committee, because originally in the form in which it is down to-night the Clause was accepted. It was only after it had been amended in various directions, and the usefulness of the Clause destroyed, that it was rejected by the Committee. That is the reason why I put it down to-night in the original form in which it was submitted upstairs. It is rather interesting to trace the stages of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris). First of all, it was submitted upstairs in a much more limited form than it is to-night, and on each occasion its supporters have taken a little more of the Clause standing in my name, and are continually adding to their Amendment. The reason my Clause is comprehensive and complex is because the operations of the trust are complex, and to get all the information about all the ramifications of the London General Omnibus combine, and similar combines of that description, it is necessary to have a comprehensive Clause of this kind.
8.0 P.M.
May I state the reasons why I have submitted this Clause, in spite of the fact that the Minister stated he had the necessary powers? I, personally, do not think he has the powers in this Bill to obtain the information we are seeking. It is true he has certain powers to obtain a limited amount of information, but let me give the real object of those who are submitting the principle behind this Clause. I want to say quite frankly I am not very much concerned with the words. I take
it hon. Members below the Gangway and ourselves have the real motive to obtain the necessary information. If the Minister had stated that the wording of the hon. Member's Clause was better than my own, I would willingly withdraw my Clause, because it is the thing I want, and not the words. In Committee we gave the Minister the opportunity of amending the Bill by the Clause which stands in my name, but he did not do so. Yet he stated here to-night he is prepared to accept it if it is the will of the House.

Mr. P. HARRIS: He cannot help himself.

Mr. BARNES: The hon. Gentleman says he cannot help himself. The attitude of the Minister at least indicates to me—and we all know it—that we have the privilege, if it pleases the House, if it is the will of the House, and the Government Whips are removed, that we can take a certain course. That cases the difficulties of hon. Members on this side of the House so far as supporting the principle embodied in the Clause.
The real purpose which animates me in proposing to move this Clause later is the simple fact that in regard to London this Bill radically alters the conditions of traffic. One cannot Burk this fact that, previously, all kinds of persons were engaged in traffic transport, and were able to put on the streets omnibuses of every description; to put them on the streets of London and to cater for the London public. Under that condition we have seen evolved in recent years one of the most effective and one of the best organised traffic comibines in the country. To-day we do not know where the ramifications of that combine extends, whether merely to London, or whether the tentacles of the combine are beginning to spread into the country and into the provinces; or how far its operations go. We do know this: that this Bill is not only conferring that preserve of London traffic on this great combine, but it is—and it is all very well for the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) to mention a few private omnibuses on the road to-day—under this scheme these few private omnibuses will soon be purchased by the combine without the shadow of a doubt; and it is for us to take that into
account. This Bill actually confers extraordinary privileges of exploitation upon this London combine, and we, as representing the citizens of London, ought to note that fact. We have a population of 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 persons all congregated together and dependent upon a combine of this description for their traffic facilities. There is no other traffic preserve in the world equal for exploitation to that of London at the present time, and we are entitled to lay down the conditions to which this combine should be subject, of special and peculiar publicity, quite apart from anything else. There was one point the Minister made; that was as to the effect that powers of this description would only be legitimate if embodied in a general Bill. I differ from that view, and would say this much, that Parliament has not gone out of its way to confer special privileges upon combines of this description. By the way, we are strongly in favour of general legislation on the lines that we are indicating here to-night—but our special reason for introducing this Amendment at this stage is because Parliament has conferred special and peculiar privileges upon this particular combine, and if Parliament is going to do that, Parliament ought to accept its rights and obligations to the people of London.

Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Gentleman say exactly where in the Bill are these special privileges which he alleges are conferred upon the combine?

Mr. BARNES: Yes, the special privileges arise from the fact that the Minister is allocating a certain number of licences for a given traffic. There is no object in the Bill unless it reduces and prevents unnecessary competition. It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Member to give lip service to competition; but there is no purpose in the Bill, there will be no reorganisation of London traffic, no elimination of the chaos of London traffic unless you reduce the number of omnibuses on given routes. If you eliminate, or reduce, the number of omnibuses over a certain number of routes—the most congested, and, therefore, the most paying routes—that means that those omnibuses which remain are ensured of an increased earning power per mile. Under these conditions, I say that you are increasing the already great power of this particular combine. There-
fore, I think that we are entitled to put this Clause forward. My reason for putting it forward, as I say, is the fact that we believe special privileges are given. We are fortified by the departure of the Government itself from what happened in our proceedings upstairs. The Government now, with its Housing Bill, proposes to introduce, side by, side with that Bill, a special Bill on profiteering. Why has it departed in this particular case? Because it recognises that by its Housing Bill it is creating peculiar conditions in the building industry. As it, is creating peculiar conditions in the building industry, it recognises obligations to the public at large, and wishes to give the public the necessary safeguards from exploitation. If the Government have been compelled to do that when introducing its Housing Bill, I submit it ought to accept the same principle here to-night and give the London public the safeguard that a Clause of this description gives.
The last point that I wish to make is that this Bill, in proposing to confer these extraordinary privileges on the combine, takes away from the London public certain powers and privileges of London government. There is no other city in the country that would have accepted the transfer of its local government obligations from itself to a State Department. I oppose that principle. Members on this side of the House oppose that principle. That principle the House has embodied in this Bill, but if the Minister is going to relegate to a Government Department these very primary principles of local government then we say he must accept the responsibility of protecting the rights of the London public. For these reasons, I trust the House will accept the second Clause on the Paper which stands in my name. I trust that hon. Members below the Gangway will find that my Clause is acceptable to them, seeing, as I understand, that it is acceptable to the Minister. I trust we shall get a united vote in the Lobby for the principle of this thing in the interests of the London public.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: The Clause which the hon. Members for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) has on the Paper is presumably the Clause on which the House will have to give its decision, with
your permission, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is how I understood the Minister, in so far as I could gather anything from the Minister as to what was his opinion about these Clauses. The Minister, it seems, proposes to put the Government Whips on against the Clause that has been moved on behalf of the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Franklin), and which is at present before the House, and to leave the House free to vote upon the Second Clause which the hon. Member for East Ham South has just been explaining.

Mr. P. HARRIS: Are we to understand that the Minister of Transport strongly objects to the Clause that has been moved by my hon. Friend and myself, and will put the Whips on against it, and that he does not object to, but will accept, the Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham South?

Mr. GOSLING: Let me try to make the position perfectly clear. The Clause standing in the name of my hon. Friends on the Liberal Benches I could not possibly accept.

Mr. HARRIS: Why not?

Mr. GOSLING: For the reason that it is unworkable. It mixes up the particulars with the licences. In the case of the second Clause, which is to be moved later, and which has been explained by the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes), the obligation is separate, the matter is more specific, and it is more likely to be enforceable. Any company engaged in the work of transport has to furnish the Minister with full particulars. Hon. Members must not forget that on the Second Reading of the Bill, and in Committee, I emphasised the fact that I did not want more powers than were necessary to deal with London traffic.

Mr. HARRIS: And the second Clause?

Mr. GOSLING: I have spoken as to that.

Sir T. INSKIP: On a point of Order. Which Clause are we discussing—the first or the second on the Paper? Are we to keep our discussion to the first Clause, which is being moved, or to the second, which is to he moved?

Mr. SPEAKER: It would hamper the House a good deal if I did not allow the merits of the two Clauses to
be discussed together. If it be the wish of the House, they can have two decisions. If the first Clause were accepted by the House, the second naturally falls; if the first Clause be defeated, the House may continue the discussion on the second, and accept it if Members think fit.

Sir T. INSKIP: Then it, perhaps, will be in order if I make a few observations on the second Clause. The House finds itself in a very curious position. The House is in very much the position of the Committee where the Minister of Transport—and I am sure everyone is satisfied upon that point—desires to be conciliatory over the Bill, and to all the interests, but that puts him in obvious difficulties. The position in which we are is due to his extreme anxiety not to he responsible for a Clause which, I think, he really knows is unworkable, and really his anxiety to conciliate hon. Members behind him who wish to be free to vote for the Clause. The Minister has said that his objection to the Clause, already moved and now before the House, is, that it mixes up—to use his own expression—all the particulars with the licences. As I understand the argument, either one or other of these Clauses does so, and the only argument, indeed, the only reason which makes the Clause in order or relevant to the Bill, is that these particulars are required in connection with the licences. If it were not for that, the Clause would be most clearly out of order.
I submitted in Committee upstairs a Clause of this sort was outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore not in order and I think that the reason it was held to be in order—with some doubt—was, that this was a power which the Minister might reasonably be expected or required to have in order that he might get the necessary information with a view to granting the licences. Now the Minister has rejected that altogether! His objection to the Clause that has been moved is that it mixes up the particulars with the licences. In Heaven's name, what is the object of the Clause? The Minister nods his head in reply to me as if he was in the same doubt as others of us. What is the object of the Clause? The Minister is in charge of the Bill. It is his Bill. Is he really going to leave the House in this state? Is the Government so invertebrate on this matter that, although he gives us no reason for including the
Clause in the Bill, and although he rejects the only reason that appeals to most hon. Members for inserting the Clause at all, he is prepared to leave it to the free vote of the House, knowing that all the hon. Members behind him, Members of his own party, intend to vote for the Clause which he, as Minister of Transport, thinks is unreasonable and unnecessary.
I do really suggest that the Minister, with the assistance of the Deputy-Leader of the House who is sitting beside him, ought to make up their minds and give guidance to the House as to whether such a Clause is necessary or not. If the Minister thinks it is unnecessary and intends to ask those on the Governmental side to resist the Clause there is no more to be said about it. If, on the other hand, the Government thinks a Clause is necessary, I should have thought that the Clause moved by the hon. Member below the Gangway was slightly better than the one moved from above the Gangway. There is a singular condition in the Clause proposed by the hon. Member for East Ham South which is really most unintelligible. It says:
(4) All particulars required to be furnished…shall be treated as confidential, except where the person furnishing the same otherwise agrees or where the Minister considers that it is in the public interest that they should be included in a return to Parliament, or where the Minister considers that the disclosure of the same is requisite for the purposes of any inquiry under this Act.
What does that mean? That the information shall be confidential. The object of this information, if it is to be given at all, is that the public and the Advisory Committee are to have access to it for the purpose of checking the issue of the Minister in regard to these licences. What does "confidential" mean? Can the Minister suggest what confidential means? Is he content to allow the House to put a Clause into a Bill of the meaning of which he is not aware. There is yet another objection, and it is that it deals with the same separate circumstances as are obviously covered by Clause 8 of the Bill. Hon. Members will see that Clause 8, Sub-section (2) provides that
The Minister shall annually make a report to Parliament containing such of the returns so furnished to him, together with such comments thereon, and on the results of operating the said services, as he
may think fit, and it shall be the duty of every such proprietor as aforesaid to furnish to the Minister such information, and to produce to him such accounts, books and documents as he may require for the purpose of preparing such report or otherwise carrying out his duties under this Act, or as he may consider to be necessary for the purposes of any inquiry held under this Act.
Can the Minister of Transport tell us how far that Clause goes? Is he advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that that Clause gives him all the powers which he thinks are necessary, and if he has been so advised, is he going to allow a second Clause to be inserted which will cover the same ground as Clause 8. I think this is an inauspicious beginning to a Bill in which all Members are interested, irrespective of party, and we are all anxious to do our best with a very difficult problem. As the Minister of Transport is the expert to deal with these matters, we should like him to give the House some clear guidance.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I should have thought, from my experience during the Committee stage of the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken, that he would have given some substantial reasons why he thought the Clause of the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) was unworkable. I have not heard a single solid reason put forward showing why it is unworkable. The word "confidential" has been referred to, but if all these details are subsequently published no one will be more pleased than those who are sitting on the Labour Benches. Provision is made in the proposed Clause whereby particulars may be made public if the Minister of Transport considers it convenient in the public interest or necessary where the relevant facts are concerned with legal proceedings. May I urge upon hon. Members below the Gangway that it would really be much more convenient if the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Franklin) were withdrawn in favour of the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham South. We are all agreed that we want some unravelling of the mysterious finance of the combines, whereas I know that hon. Members opposite do not desire any such thing, and they desire the London traffic combine to remain a, financial mystery. They believe in the ways of
darkness and we believe in the ways of light.
After all, this is not a Labour Party Bill. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip) to expect the Minister of Transport to come forward with a great amount of enthusiasm and vigour in order to champion a Tory Bill. I think the hon. and learned Member should be very grateful to the Minister for doing as much as he has done to get a Tory Bill through, and he should not try to embarrass him in the way he has been doing. Cannot hon. Members of this House do anything without a Minister tells them what to do? Hon. Members tell the electorate they are going to do this and that, and when they get here they cannot do a thing without the Minister tells them what to do. I have had some experience in local government, and I am not accustomed to these methods, and I appeal to the House of Commons to rise to its responsibility. Let every hon. Member make up his mind, and if the Minister does not vote, then, of course, he has lost a Division. Hon. Members ought to be able to judge as to the merits of these two Clauses. I have read both of them. As far as the proceedings on the Committee are concerned in regard to these Clauses, they are not a very good guide to the House. On the ninth day we carried the second of these Clauses, and on the tenth day the hon. Member for Central Hackney moved substantially the Clause which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green has now moved.
The Committee rejected the Clause moved by the hon. Member for Central Hackney without a Division, but the Clause moved by the hon. Member for East Ham South got a Second Reading. Between the ninth day and the tenth day of the Committee proceedings apparently there was some vigorous organisation, and the Whips were put on. At the end of the tenth day, the opponents of the Clause were there in great glory and in great numbers, and the result was that they rejected the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill." Therefore, so far as the proceedings on the Committee are concerned they were more favourable to the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham South than that of the Clause moved by
the hon. Member for Central Hackney. What is the real point involved It is ridiculous for hon. Members to say that this is a question which should be dealt with by general legislation to be introduced by the President of the Board of Trade. It may be that legislation will be introduced. It is possible that it will, and it is possible that it will be passed, but it is quite possible that it will not be adopted in this imperfect House of Commons.
What shall we have done then? We shall have given a protected monopoly to Lord A shfield for which he has been fighting and for which hon. Members opposite have been fighting, and he will have got a protected monopoly for his omnibuses without any provision that the full light of publicity shall be brought to bear upon the mysterious financial organisation of which he is the head. Hon. Members opposite may trust the London traffic combine, but I do not, and I think it is a thing London would be better without. I do not like its American methods and involved finance and secrecy. We are entitled to measurement and publicity, and I am surprised the Minister does not welcome this new Clause. The hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol says, "Does not Clause 8 give you what you want?" He is a learned Member and I am not. He has read Clause 8 and so have I, and Clause 8 relates exclusively to omnibuses. It would be very charming, it is true, to know all about the dark side of omnibuses and their finance, but there is not the least value in knowing about Lord Ashfield's omnibus finance unless we know the inside finance of the Associated Equipment 'Company, of the Underground Railways, and of the Metropolitan Electric Tramways, because the whole of these are so linked up that merely knowing about the finance of the omnibus part of the undertaking does not throw any material light on the matters regarding which the House ought to be in possession of information.
In these circumstances it is clear that Clause 8 does not meet the point that is put forward in this Clause. I could imagine that Conservative Members might like the House to be content with Clause 8 and leave it there, but we do not want to be left in a position which might be a danger to both of these new Clauses, and, therefore, I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal
Green (Mr. P. Harris) to give way. I do not think that there is a. great deal of substantial difference between the two Clauses. As regards drafting, I think that ours, on the whole, is better, and as regards working I think it may be rather more practicable, even though it is longer, which in itself, I agree, is not a recommendation. If, however, the Minister is not prepared to put the Whips on against the one Clause, I think there would be a, danger of both Clauses being lost, and, in order that we may get the light of publicity upon this matter, I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green to give way and allow the vote to be taken on the Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham South. Otherwise, there is a danger that the champions of the traffic combine in this House may win against what is a real majority of opinion in the House of Commons.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) will not yield to the appeal which has been made to him by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). I labour under the disadvantage—or perhaps it may be an advantage—of not having been a Member of the Committee upstairs, but I have been at the pains to secure the Report of the Committee's proceedings, and have read the Debates which took place upon the second of these Clauses, which was discussed in Committee for two days It is quite true, as the hon. Member for South Hackney says, that on the first day the Clause was passed, and that on the second day the Clause in practically the same form was rejected; and I am bound to say that the discussion in Committee did not give me much enlightenment its to the reasons which led the Committee to change its opinion during the interval. Having now read these two Clauses and the Debate in Committee, I do not understand why the Minister is going to put on the Whips against the Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green, and is not going to put the Whips on against the Clause of the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes).
I agree in the desire for publicity with regard to the mysterious doings of the omnibus combine in London. We want
to get at the bottom of this matter before we give new powers and opportunities to these great companies. To me, the first of these Clauses seems better than the second, but I should like the Minister to tell me why he is going to put the Whips on against my hon. Friend's Clause. He does not want either Clause in his Bill, and I can quite understand that. He says he has power enough, and anyway it is a matter affecting the general law rather than this Bill, but that applies equally to both Clauses, and I appeal to the Minister to give the same treatment to them both. If my hon. Friend's Clause is rejected, the other Clause will, in accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling, come up for decision, and we shall have the opportunity of dividing upon it. The other Clause, therefore, is not endangered unless my hon. Friend's Clause 3s carried. There will, however, be more opposition to the Clause pro posed from the Labour Benches than to that of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend's Clause is in more general terms, and would, I think, give the Minister power to get all the information that we want; and he would get the information at the right time. The great advantage of my hon. Friend's Clause is that the information has to be supplied before the licence is granted, and the information will be of importance in deciding whether or not the licence shall be granted, whereas the Labour Clause says:
It shall be the duty of the proprietor of any omnibus which is licensed—
to supply certain information. The licence will have been granted before tilt> information has been given, and, therefore, it seems to me that the information will be much less valuable than if it were given before the granting of the licence. For these reasons I hope my hon. Friend will not withdraw his Clause, but that we shall divide upon it., and that we shall be allowed to do so without the Whips being put on. I cannot understand why the Minister should differentiate in this way between two Clauses the object of which is practically the same. I do not see why, as the hon. Member for South Hackney has said, the House should nol, settle this question without guidance from the Minister. The guidances he has given us is, "We do not want the Clause." I
believe the House does want a Clause. and wants to be left free to decide upon it.

Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I should like to try and answer the questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Ashley) as to what is to be done by the Minister with the information which it is proposed that he should receive from the applicant for a licence. The answer to that is contained in Sub-section (2, b) of Clause 7 of the Bill, which gives the Minister the power of
determining the omnibus proprietors whose omnibuses alone may ply for hire on the street and apportioning amongst those proprietors such aggregate number of journeys as aforesaid; hut so, nevertheless. that the right so to ply shall not be limited to the omnibuses of one proprietor in any case where it appears to the Minister to be reasonable and practicable that the right should be exercised by other omnibuses also.
It is in order that the Minister, when making up his mind under that Sub-section as to whether he shall grant a, licence to applicant A or applicant B, may know whether he is really granting a licence to an independent person or to a person who, although he appears to be independent, is really nothing but a nominee of the combine, that the first of these Clauses proposes that the information shall be furnished to the Minister before he grants the licence.

Colonel ASHLEY: Do I understand the hon. and learned Member to hold that no member of the combine ought to receive a licence at all?

Mr. COMYNS-CARR: Certainly not; but what the Clause does propose is that, when the Minister is exercising the duty which Sub-section (2, b) of Clause 7 imposes upon him of determining who are the proprietors who are to have the licences, and of seeing that the right is not limited to one particular proprietor, he should know at that stage with whom he is really dealing, and whether, having allocated to the combine such number of licences as he thinks they are entited to. when he comes to allocate the remaining licences which he thinks ought not to go to the combine, he is really giving them to independent persons or to someone who is really nothing but the combine in disguise. That is the purpose of the Clause, and that is why I would most
earnestly appeal to hon. Members above the Gangway to prefer this first Clause to the second, and to the Minister of Transport to allow the House not only a free vote on the general question whether they desire a Clause which supplies this publicity, but also a free vote on the question which of the two Clauses they prefer.
I say quite frankly that I am not advocating this particular Clause, nor am I enamoured of it as against the other, because it happens to have been put down by members of my own party, while the second has been put down by members of the party above the Gangway. I am looking merely at the two Clauses to see which of them, in fact, is most likely to achieve the object in view. The first reason why I think the first Clause is most likely to achieve the object in view is that it provides for tho information being given to the Minister before he grants the licence, whereas the second provides that the information shall be given by the proprietor of any omnibus which is licensed. If you are not to give the information until you have the licence it is not very much use, for the immediate purpose in hand, seeking for the information at all. It may be of general interest to have it, but it will not prevent the Minister from giving a licence to a nominee of the combine under the erroneous impression that he is giving it to an independent person. Then the first Clause provides for the form in which the information is to be obtained being left to the Minister, whereas the second Clause goes in great detail into the particular method by which it is to be got. Not being entirely without experience of this kind of matter, may I suggest that where you are seeking to make Regulations to extract information from people who are not always very anxious to give it, it is highly desirable that you should not tie down in advance the precise form in which you are to put your questions, and if you find that the gentleman to whom you are putting your questions has devised a method of dodging the first form in which it is given you should have power to alter the form so as to put what is known in this House as a supplementary question for the purpose of really extracting the information from him. Therefore, I think the first Clause, by providing that the information is to be given in such form as the
Minister may determine, giving full details of the agreement, is better than attempting in an Act of Parliament to specify all the particular questions and all the particular forms, which appears to be the purpose of the manner of pro cedure adopted in the second Clause.
Then I do not see anything further that is gained by Sub-section (2) of the second Clause, and I find it very difficult to see how that is going to be enforced. I can quite understand how you can compel a man who is applying for a licence to supply particulars of the interest which other people may hold in his concern, and I do not see any difficulty in his being able to supply those particulars. But I find it very difficult to understand how you are going to gather the information from people who are not applying for licences at all, but are outside people, who may or may not hold an interest in the business of someone who is applying for a licence. How is the other company, or series of companies, who, under Sub-section (2) of the second Clause, are required to supply information about an omnibus which is licensed, going to know when they have got to carry out their duties under the Clause? If the Minister asks them the question that is another matter, but before the Minister can ask them the question ho must have got from some other person the information that they aro the parties interested, and I do not see how Sub-section (2) of the second Clause can be made workable for that reason. I think Sub-section (4) is quite unnecessary, and to a certain extent mischievous, because I do not see what we want with the information being confidential at all. Why should the proprietors of any of these combines shrink from the information being given to the public? Certainly if they do shrink from it I do not think that is a coyness which we ought to encourage. I do not see any reason why the information is to be confidential, even if the insertion of the word "confidential" carries any meaning. I do not see myself that it carries any meaning at all, because there is only one way of making information confidential by Act of Parliament and that is by including it in the Official Secrets Act or the terms of some similar Statute. There is nothing here, as far as I can see, which would make that Clause workable. It is suggested that the powers
you require are already contained in Clause 8 of the Bill. I think that is not so.

Sir T. INSKIP: I do not suggest that Clause 8 gives the same powers that the proposed new Clause did. The Minister thinks he has sufficient powers, which are the powers, I understand, included in Clause 8. What I was saying was that it is a very inartistic and undesirable thing to do to have two Clauses in one Bill more or less covering the same ground. It would be better if we had the whole matter put into proper form.

Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is supplying the House with the thoughts of the Minister. I now understand that the point is that it would be better that what we desire should be achieved by an Amendment of Clause 8 rather than by a separate Clause. That may be so, but I think the answer to it is that the two Clauses are dealing entirely with different subject-matters. Clause 8, in the first place, is, like the second new Clause we are considering to-night, in this difficulty, that no information is to he supplied under it until after the omnibus is licensed, so that in the same way the Minister would not get any information for the purpose of making up his mind whether he is to license a particular omnibus or not until he had arrived at a determination on the point. But apart from that, it seems to me, if one reads Clause 8 as a whole, the records and returns which the Minister is enabled to require under the Clause are not records and returns relating to the financial affairs of the company. They appear to me to be records and returns relating to the running of the omnibus after it has been licensed and not to the financial control of the company or the individual who owns the omnibuses. For these two reasons, but mainly for the reason that it does not provide for any information being given until after the omnibus is licensed, I think Clause 8 is useless for the purpose we have in view.
I should like most urgently to ask the House seriously to take in hand the question of giving these powers so that we may obtain real publicity, because there is a very real danger of this Bill resulting in an immense strengthening of the monopoly which we know already exists
to a very large extent. What is likely to happen when the Minister makes an order under Clause 7, Sub-section (2) for restricting the number of licences on a particular route? Let us assume that the Minister does at first successfully carry out the power entrusted to him of seeing that the combine only secures its fair share of the licences and that the other licences go to independent owners. I think it is very doubtful whether he will be able to do it without those powers, but let us suppose that on the first occasion of the issue of licences he does. The very first thing the combine will do is to try to buy up the fortunate few of the independent omnibuses which have secured licences and, knowing perfectly well the dangers staring them in the face, the combine are not going to buy them up in their own name. They will buy them in the names of nominees, or by some indirect method, in an attempt to conceal from the Minister, when he comes to deal with the renewal of the licences, the fact that really the whole of the omnibuses that he has licensed have passed into the control of the combine. It is for that reason that it seems to me the Bill must inevitably tend to the tightening of the monopoly unless we really can secure some definite means by which full information will be obtainable by the Minister before he grants or renews a licence for any particular omnibus. It is for that reason that I press upon the House, not only to adopt one of these Clauses, but to adopt the first Clause in preference to the second, because it is the only one of the two which effectively carries out the purpose intended.

Mr. THURTLE: I wish to ask hon. Members below the Gangway for information. It is contended that this first Clause is going to get us as much information as the second Clause. It may be so, but I have my doubts, and I should like to have those doubts resolved for me before I can find my way clear to support the Clause. The Clause asks for two classes of information. It asks, in the first place, for full details of any agreements for the control of the omnibus proprietor's business by loan, agreement, shareholding or interlocking directorship, or otherwise, of his business by any other company or person. The second part asks for particulars as to his holding or beneficial
interest in the stocks, shares or securities in the 'business of any company engaged in the manufacture or supply of vehicles, plant, equipment or requisites for any such service. There is no provision, as far as I can understand the Clause, for obtaining information as to shareholding in subsidiary companies which are actually engaged in the traffic business itself. The paragraph referring to interlocking directorships refers to the control of the combine's business, or shareholding, for the specific control of its business.
I can conceive that there may be lucrative business in one part of London where the omnibus proprietor makes great profits. In such a case, the combine might decide that a subsidiary company should be started, the combine taking up practically the whole of the ordinary share capital. The combine might withdraw its own omnibuses from that section of London and allow the subsidiary company a free run, and that company would, therefore, be able to make enormous profits. There is nothing in this Clause which calls upon the omnibus combine to disclose its holding in that particular company.

Mr. PRINGLE: The subsidiary company would have to disclose that in applying for its licence.

Mr. THURTLE: As I read the Clause, these interests are contingent upon the control of the business of the parent company, and you cannot say that the subsidiary company is controlling the parent company or the combine, when it is merely carrying on its business in a particular part of London.

Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member is imagining the position of a subsidiary company running over a particular route. That company would require to apply for a licence under this Clause, and in its application it would have to indicate all its financial relations with the parent company or with any holding company. Therefore, ray hon. Friend need be under no apprehension that this Clause would not deal with that situation.

Mr. THURTLE: The company would merely have to submit the details of its shareholders. [HON. MEMBERS: "Its agreements!"] If the company were
floated and the shares were taken up by the public, the company, as such, is not supposed to have any knowledge as to whether its shareholders have any connection with the combine or not.

Mr. PRINGLE: May I assure my hon. Friend that this Clause has been drafted by a gentleman who has great experience of all these working agreements and of the holding of shares?

Mr. THURTLE: If that be the case, and as I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be versed in the law, I am quite satisfied that the Clause is good enough for me, so long as there is a provision which will make it quite certain that we can get all the necessary information as to these subsidiary companies as well as the parent companies

Dr. MACNAMARA: Can we have a clear statement from the Minister of Transport that he will put the Whips on against the first Clause, and that he will not put them on against the second one?

Mr. GOSLING: I thought I made it clear. I do not disagree with the principle of these Clauses. In certain circumstances I think it will be very valuable information to get of all trusts and combines, but if you are going to get information from trusts and combines you should do it by general legislation. This is a Traffic Bill, and for the purposes of this Bill I think the information is not necessary, but if the House believes that it is better that there should be a Clause of this kind, I think the second Clause is better than the first one.

Mr. PRINGLE: The Minister of Transport says that for the purposes of this Bill it is not necessary to have inquiry as to monopolies. Is that because the purpose of the Bill is to create a monoply?

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: I would ask the House to accept Clause 1 rather than Clause 2. If it is to accept one of the Clauses, let it accept one that is workable and not one that is unworkable. Clause 2 states that it shall be the duty of any company engaged in providing any form of transport service in the London area or elsewhere or in the manufacture and supply of vehicles, plant, equipment or requisites to provide information. What are plant, equipment and requisites? There is hardly anything that,
sooner or later, is not used in connection with the transport service. A builder receives an order to put up a garage. He has to provide plant, but he cannot get on with his job unless he has previously furnished to the Minister all particulars regarding his shareholdings in the London General Omnibus Company, in Tillings or any other company. There is no rubber that comes into the Port of London that may not be used sooner or later in connection with requisites for transport service. I pointed out in Committee that perambulators were a form of transport, and that any perambulator manufacturer would have to say whether or not he has shares in any of these omnibus companies. So it would go on, applying almost to everything that comes into our ordinary life. Any steel that might come from Vickers', or any of the big makers, would be affected, because it might be used in connection with omnibus services. Clause 2 as it stands is practically ridiculous.
The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) labours under an obsession. He thinks that we are all interested, financially or sympathetically, or in some way or other, in the omnibus combine. I sat many mornings in the Standing Committee, and so far as I could see we were no more interested in the combine than hon. Members opposite. All we want is to see the streets of London put into a better condition than they are now, and we want to see "fair do's" for the small maker and the small man, as against the powerful combine. That was my only object in sitting on the Standing Committee. If we are going to adopt either of these Clauses, I have no objection to Clause 1, but Clause 2 is pratically unworkable.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I think that the first Clause is a better Clause. It asks for information of the right kind in a general form which would enable the Minister to make his Regulations, but the Government Whips are to be put on against us. I hope that my hon. Friend will take this to a Division, and I will vote for the first Clause. I hope that it will get the support of the hon. Member opposite who prefers the first Clause. He is bound to get one of them, because if we cannot get the first Clause we are going to vote for the second, though we do not think it is so good, but we are so keen on this
question of publicity of trusts that we want to get one of them. I was greatly disappointed with the Minister. He has not helped us in the slightest degree. If it, were not for the happy-go-lucky temper of the London people it would not have been possible to deal with this problem in the way in which it has been dealt with. It would not be possible in any other great city of this country. Do not let us presume too much on the good temper of the London people, but let us handle this matter with some approach to knowledge.

Mr. NAYLOR: I also make an appeal to hon. Members opposite. They have got to accept one or other of these two propositions. I think that they will be well advised to study carefully what has been said with regard to the two propositions, and to come over to the side of No. 2. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) say that the first proposition was drafted by an expert draftsman.

Mr. PRINGLE: I did not say that, said an expert on company finance.

Mr. NAYLOR: Then evidently he was not so expert in draftsmanship. There is one slight difference between No. 1 and No. 2 which has not been mentioned. In No. 2 Clause there is no reference to interlocking directorships, but that is covered by the general paragraph in the Clause which would enable the Minister to get all the information which he desires with respect even to those interlocking directorships. I would ask the hon. Member who moved the first Clause what he means by the final paragraph relating to the penalty. He refers to the cancellation of the licence. Is he assuming that the application for a licence applies only to one omnibus? Then if the company were making an application for a licence of an extra omnibus, if it has not got the licence, of course it is not possible to cancel it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or the renewal!"] I accept that. If the application for a licence is for the company, are you going to cancel all the licences?

9.0 P.M.

Mr. P. HARRIS: Every licence is individual and each licence is given individually to the nominee of the company, and if they make a false statement it applies to all the licences and all the licences would fail.

Mr. NAYLOR: Then it would mean if the offending party were a great owner, with 2,000 or 3,000 omnibuses, all these omnibuses would be brought to a standstill because all the licences would be withdrawn. That is a contingency that has to be faced.

Mr. PRINGLE: It is for the Court to decide.

Mr. NAYLOR: But you must consider the consequences of any penalty you prescribe. If you are going to control traffic to the extent of holding up 2,000 or 3,000 omnibuses because a certain company has offended against the law, you may be solving the traffic problem, but you are not solving the problem of transit from one place to another, because the omnibuses will not be running. I may submit one other reason why the House should support the second of these two Clauses. The second Clause was on the Paper before the first Clause made its appearance, and it was not until we had put the second Clause on the Paper that hon. Members thought it necessary to put forward the other Clause, and I suggest that though that proposition is more concise and more easily understood and may conceivably be easier for the Minister in its application it does not cover the ground so effectively as the second Clause, which I hope will be supported by the House.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: It is most amusing to some of us on this side, who hitherto have not attempted to identify ourselves with either of these Clause's or with the opposition to either of them, to hear the advice which is given by the smallest party in the House to those who, by their permission, are on the Front Bench.

Mr. E. BROWN: And yours.

Sir H. NIELD: As the hon. Member for Rugby seems to be so concerned in this question of the London traffic, it will be interesting to know why he wants to interrupt speakers who know something about it.

Mr. BROWN: Because I happen to be an inhabitant of London.

Sir H. NIELD: Then you should represent sent London, but as you go down to Warwickshire, you should assume responsibility for Warwick, and not for London. Let us look at the other side of the
picture. Hon. Members above the Gangway, notably the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), direct attention to this side of the House, and warn us as if we were partners in a. great crime, whereas we are unidentified with anything of the sort. I challenge any hon. Member to suggest that anybody in this House is connected with this combine which is the bâte noire of hon. Members on that side of the House. It is amusing to hear the mutual advice which is given by these parties to each other, and to notice the sacerdotal importance which each party gives to the other, because they assume the priestly office of giving advice. Let hon. Members who desire to throw aspersions upon any part of the community, whether they are engaged in London traffic or not, state their objections frankly and fairly.
Hitherto it has been the character of Englishmen that we speak our minds, and that when we do make charges we put them into definite language. When the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) refers to the dark side of finance I want to know what he means. Am I to understand that he has invested n shares and lost money by it? Am I to understand that there has been a shifting of financial responsibility as between the persons who are now designated, with terms of contempt, the combine, and that they are guilty of financial impropriety? Let us have it fairly and frankly stated. Let us uphold the reputation of this House for fair dealing. If anyone suggests that I or any of my friends is associated with monopoly, let it be stated frankly and fairly; do not let it he covered up. We have quite enough to do with general statements which win general elections on false facts. In this House, at any rate, we want to have definite statements supported by facts. It is not to the credit of this Assembly that these reflections should be made. We may object to combinations. Nobody is stronger than I am in objecting to trusts and combinations, the object of which is deliberately to raise prices. Curiously enough, I fought the last election against a person who, while professing to be an abject disciple of Free Trade, was protected in connection with the milk combine. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have greeted that statement with jeers and derision. I
have nothing to do, nor, I believe, have my hon. Friends anything to do, with monopolies and trusts, any more than any Member of the investing public might have. It is not to the credit of this House that these allegations should be thrown about broadcast without there being such elements of fact attached to them as to enable this House to proceed on an. investigation, if necessary.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I shall vote for the first Clause, because it does what I think such a Clause ought to do. We ought not to have too much permission. The Clause says that the Minister shall claim the information. I do not want it to he left to the Minister to obtain the information if he cares to do so. I want it to be imposed upon him that he shall obtain the information. I hope that the last speaker will not think it inadvisable for me to take part in this Debate because I represent a Welsh constituency. With regard to the whole problem of London traffic, some of us who are more accustomed to the well-regulated traffic of the large cities in the North are amazed at the chaos that exists in London. The more numerous the Clauses which will make for cohesion and give some centralised authority, and curb the power of private monopolists that control the streets of a city like London, the more I shall be in favour of such Clauses.

Mr. R. MORRISON: As one who attended every meeting of the Committee that considered this Bill, I would like to justify my voting against the first Clause

and in favour of the second Clause. I have taken some trouble to try to understand the meaning of both Clauses, and as a result of my own study and of the advice which I have received from other people, I have come to the conclusion that the first Clause is unworkable. Clauses that are proposed to be inserted in the Bill have to be regarded not only from the point of view of what they appear to do, but from the point of view of their application. In its present wording I believe it is impossible to apply the first Clause. At any rate, it would be extraordinarily difficult. It appears to me that the Government may have to take the advice of those who are competent to advise them and again alter the Clause in another place. The position of the Minister has been made perfectly clear throughout. He has drawn attention again and again to the first Clause of the Bill, and to the fact that the Bill is framed with a view of facilitating and improving the regulation of the traffic of London. He has stated that repeatedly. He has said that he had enough powers already in the Bill, but that if the House wanted him to take the powers which are suggested by these two Clauses he was perfectly willing to do so. That is quite consistent.

Mr. L. JONES: This is only the Second Reading of the Clause. If my hon. Friend wishes to alter it, he can do so when the Clause is in Committee.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 126.

Division No. 93.]
AYES.
[9.14 p.m.


Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)
Burman, J. B.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Apsley, Lord
Caine, Gordon Hall
Falconer, J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Finney, V. H.


Asks, Sir Robert William
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fletcher, Lieut-Commander R. T. H.


Baker, Walter
Clarry, Reginald George
Foot, Isaac


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Forestier-Walker, L.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Gates, Percy


Barclay, R. Noton
Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Cope, Major William
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Costello, L. W. J.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Becker, Harry
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gilbert, James Daniel


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Crittail, V. G.
Gorman, William


Birkett, W. N.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Black, J. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis


Bonwick, A.
Deans, Richard Storry
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.


Bourne, Captain R. C.
Dixey, A. C.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Dodds, S. R.
Hamilton, sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Brass, Captain W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harland, A.


Bromfleld, William
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Elliot, Walter E.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Brunner, Sir J.
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
England, Colonel A.
Hindle, F.


Hobhouse, A. L.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Hodge, Lieut.-Col, J. P. (Preston)
Owen, Major G.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Hoffman, P. C.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Pease, William Edwin
Starmer, Sir Charles


Hopkinson. A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Penny, Frederick George
Steel, Samuel Strang


Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stranger, Innes Harold


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Perring, William George
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Philipson, Mabel
Sturrock, J. Leng


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Phillipps, Vivian
Sutcliffe, T.


Jewson, Dorothea
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pringle, W. M. R.
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Raffan, P. W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Raffety, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Keens, T.
Raine, W.
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Kenyon, Barnet
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Rea, W. Russell
Vivian, H.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lamb, J. Q.
Rentoul, G. S.
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Laverack, F. J.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Livingstone, A. M.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Locker-Lampoon, G. (Wood Green)
Robertson, T. A.
Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.}


Loverseed, J. F.
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Wells, S. R.


McCrae, Sir George
Rcundell, Colonel R. F.
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Macfadyen, E.
Royle, C.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


McLean, Major A.
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C
Wignall, James


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Maden, H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Maj. A.S.(Kent, Sevenoaks)


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Willison, H.


Meller, R. J.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Savery, S. S.
Wintringham, Margaret


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Scurr, John
Welmer, Viscount


Morris, R. H.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Moulton, Major Fletcher
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Murrell, Frank
Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withington)
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Simpson, J. Hope



Oliver, George Harold
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Mr. Percy Harris and Mr. Briant.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Groves, T.
O'Grady, Captain James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Paling, W.


Alden, Percy
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perry, S. F.


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ponsonby, Arthur


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Potts, John S.


Ayles, W. H.
Haycock, A. W.
Raynes, W. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hemmerde, E. G.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Banton, G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Isaacs, G. A.
Romeril, H. G.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Royce, William Stapleton


Buckie, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sexton, James


Cape, Thomas
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Charieton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sherwood, George Henry


Church, Major A. G.
Jewett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Smillie, Robert


Clarke, A.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Climbs, R.
Lansbury, George
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James.
Snell, Harry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Leach, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Spence, R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lindley, F. W.
Spoor, B. G.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Stamford, T. W.


Dukes, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sullivan, J.


Duncan, C.
McEntee, V. L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mackinder, W.
Thurtle, E.


Egan, W. H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
March, S.
Tout, W. J.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Tr[...]elyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Middleton, G.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mills, J. E.
Varley, Frank B.


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Gosling, Harry
Morel, E. D.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Warne, G. H.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Greenall, T.
Mosley, Oswald
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Naylor, T. E.
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon, Josiah C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Nichol, Robert
Welsh, J. C.




Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)
Wright, W.


Whiteley, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)



Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Windsor, Walter
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned!"
I think the unexpected decision—certainly unexpected by the Government—to which the House has just come puts the House in a certain difficulty. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I wish to show, in view of the Motion which I now propose, that the House is in a difficulty. The proposed new Clause has just received a Second Reading. The Minister has indicated that it is a Clause to which his Department takes exception in respect of certain of its terms, and his understudy, the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison), who spoke with great authority towards the close of the Debate, put that point even more clearly than the Minister himself. In these circumstances, as the House has made a pronouncement in favour of the Clause, I think it advisable that the Government should have an opportunity of putting before the House on another date the Amendments to the Clause which they think are necessary. I have not suggested that the drafting of the Clause is perfect. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed on that, and in order to give the Government an opportunity of putting the Clause into a workable form I move this Motion.

Viscount CURZON: With reference to the Motion which has just been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), I should really like—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): Does the hon. and gallant Member rise to Second the Motion?

Sir K. WOOD: I second that, Sir.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) has stated his view of the position of the House which has just given a vote in favour of a Clause moved by his associates. The Government in Ibis matter have endeavoured to make the best of a. Bill which was on the stocks before they came into office. As was announced in the beginning, we must accept the decision of the House on many important
questions of detail in this Bill. I hope, therefore, we shall proceed with the several parts of the Bill in accordance with arrangement.

Dr. MACNAMARA: As far as I am personally concerned, I should be most glad to help the Lord Privy Seal. I do not commit anybody else. But see the difficulty! We have got the Second Reading of a Clause which, apparently, requires some modification, according to the speech of the Minister of Transport. If the Minister says, "After all, I will stand by this" or "We can go into Committee on it, and amend it," that it all I want. If he could secure that, I would appeal to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) not to press his Motion. We want to get on with business.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to say at once, speaking on behalf of the leader of my party as well as of myself, that we cannot accept the Motion. The Minister of Transport told us he would leave the second Clause to the House. Mr. Speaker ruled quite definitely earlier in the day that if the first Clause were carried, the second could not be moved. We all knew what the position was when we went into the Lobby. I quite agree with what the Lord Privy Seal has said, that this Bill was largely prepared by his predecessors in office, and we are to a great extent responsible for certain of the provisions, indeed for the main structure of the Bill. It would not be right for us to join in asking that the Debate be adjourned. If the Minister feels it necessary, the Bill can be recommitted before the Third Reading in order to deal with the Amendment of the Clause. May I respectfully suggest to the Minister, that if he were a little more firm in stating his decisions to the House, and giving the House the guidance to which it is entitled, and which it expects from the Government, we should be in a better position? After all, the House knows that every Member cannot be conversant with details of all these Amendments. The Minister of Transport did not give the House the necessary guidance. If he had done so, the House would not be in its present unfortunate position. I say this without
any personal feeling, but in order that the House might not, in future, be put in this unfortunate position. We cannot, therefore, support the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.

Mr. L. JONES: I do not rise to support the Motion, but I think the House is in a difficulty in this matter. Under our procedure we must now go into Committee on this Clause, which has not been added to the Bill, before we can get any further. The alternative is not to move any Amendments, but add the Clause to the Bill and recommit the Bill after we have completed it. The House must take one of these two courses. We cannot go on with other parts of the Bill, leaving this matter suspended in mid-air.

Mr. PRINGLE: My right hon. Friend the Deputy-Leader of the House, quite misunderstood my motive. The Motion I propose is merely for the convenience of the Government. If this Debate be adjourned now, the Government will lose nothing. They have three other Bills which will occupy the time of the House up to the legitimate hour, so That there will be no loss of time. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that if the Government do not accept my suggestion, it will be necessary to recommit this Clause, which will add to the time to be taken in the future. If the Adjournment were taken now, and the Government could put down their Amendments for the next sitting, they would make much greater progress with the Bill than they are likely to make by taking the course they propose. I do not, however, press my Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I am not in the least interested in the game which is being played, and I did not vote in the last division. I am interested in seeing that Clauses of this kind are thoroughly understood and discussed by the House. I did not vote against the Government last time, though I thought this Clause was exceedingly faulty. The matter should be carefully considered by the Law Officers, and a Clause really effective of what the Government and the House wants should be drawn up. I do hope the Government ail] give a definite undertaking that the Bill will be recommitted in respect of this Clause, so that it can be thoroughly gone into, or, if not, that
the matter will be allowed to stand over, and proper Amendments put down. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman understands I am not in the least hostile to him. The best evidence of that is that I did not vote against the Government in that extraordinary division when Members of the Government front bench were voting against the Government Whips. I hope the Government will meet me, either by adjourning the Debate, which will be the best thing to do, or by giving a definite undertaking to recommit the Bill.

Mr. CLYNES: The time between now and eleven o'clock is of great importance in view of the large number of Amendments on the Paper still to be considered. Much time has already been given to the consideration of this Bill in earlier parts of the Session, and there is a desire that every possible headway should be made in respect of remaining Amendments. I think some hon. Members have read rather more into the observations of my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport than actually was intended: but if it be found, when it is seen what he actually did say as to the limitations of the Clause which has been carried, that Amendment is desirable, I give the House the undertaking that the necessary steps for recommittal will be taken in order that the matter may be considered.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I did not base what I said on the remarks of the Minister of Transport. Will an opportunity be given to any private Member to put down proper Amendments to this Clause when it is recommitted, quite apart from the views of the Minister of Transport?

Viscount WOLMER: What is the position of the ordinary Member? We have here a Clause which we have got to go through in the Committee stage, or at once. If the Government will not give us a promise that the Clause shall be recommitted, so that we shall have leisure and opportunity to consider Amendments that may be moved to it, it may now be necessary to move those Amendments.

Mr. CLYNES: I have not the slightest objection to extending my assurance to that matter.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Advisory Committee.)

Mr. D. HERBERT: I beg to move in page 1, line 7, to leave out from the word "London" to the word "there" in line 10.
These words are not really operative words: they ate merely in the nature of a preamble. The suggestion conveyed by them is that the Bill shall not be effective until some authority is constituted, which authority at the present moment is entirely in the air. This Amendment is moved by me as a supporter of the Bill as a whole, although there are points in it which I do not like. I move the Amendment for two reasons. The first is that a recital of this kind is of no possible use to the object of the Bill, and, in the second place, it may possibly at some future date cause difficulties if you get cases arising under this Section which may be brought before the Courts. The object of the recital is to commit another Parliament to some future course of action. No doubt every party in the House has been guilty of some mistake of that kind, and I need only refer to the historic case of the Act passed in 1911 at the instance of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite dealing with the constitution of another place, which they expressly mentioned was to be only temporary until something else was done. That something else has never yet been done. I hope the Government will do what I venture most respectfully to suggest as an improvement in this form of legislation and will strike out unnecessary words which may possibly lead to complications in the future.

Sir WILLIAM BULL: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. GOSLING: I accept the Amendment.

Mr. H. MORRISON: I desire to make it clear why my name is associated with this particular Amendment. The reasons are not those which animate the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. We would have preferred that the words declaring the intention of Parliament to deal with the problem of local govern-
ment in Greater London should have been there, but we were faced with the difficulty that the only way to get a definite time limit for the operation of the Bill was to take out these words and put them in a Clause at the end of the Measure. Hon. Members will see that later on I have put down an Amendment to Clause 16 with that object. I desire to make it quite clear that some of us on these benches are supporting the Amendment to take out these words, not because we are anxious to take them out—although as a matter of fact they are of very little value, for they are merely a pious expression of opinion, or, as the President of the Board of Trade would call them, a "religious exercise"—but we desire to take them out with the deliberate purpose later on of putting in a new Sub-section which will put a definite limit of three years to the operation of the Bill. Some hon. Members, no doubt, are supporting this Amendment for different reasons, and I therefore desire to make it perfectly clear that what we wish to do is to put a definite time limit on this Bill so that this or some other Government will be compelled to make arrangements for dealing with the general question of local government organisation in London.

Sir PHILIP LLOYD-GREAME: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the speech to which we have just listened. There is no object whatsoever in having these words in the Bill. A Parliamentary Bill should be confined to the purpose for which it has been brought in, and if this Amendment had not been accepted I should have certainly voted for it, because, as I view them, the words are intended to commit the Government in some way. I agree that one Parliament cannot commit another. This at any rate, is an attempt to commit a future Government to deal with the question of local government in Greater London. This is a matter which has been discussed for a good number of years, and there are many people in all quarters of the House who, I think, will agree that any proposal to commit the House to a grandiose or unnecessary scheme should be met with unqualified opposition.

Mr. P. HARRIS: We now know where we stand. We appreciate the desire to eliminate these important words, which are the only justification for this very
exceptional kind of legislation. It has been pointed out several times that a Bill of this nature would not be tolerated in any other part of the country except London. Other parts regulate their own traffic, and the only justification the Minister of Transport has put forward for this particular Bill has been that the chaotic condition of London government, owing to the fact that the area of London is not analogous to the area affected by the traffic problem, made it necessary for the Government to become responsible for what was really a relic of the last Government, and entirely against the democratic professions of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. If these particular words are eliminated it will be very difficult to reform London government, and hon. Members opposite know that to be the case, for when we set up a Government Department with a horde of officials and a complete organisation to deal with a problem of this kind, they would create a vested interest which will oppose any new scheme. The Ministry of Transport was condemned to extinction nearly three years ago. Its main work during the last two years has been taken from it, but this Bill undoubtedly is an attempt to reestablish it as a permanent institution. We know what officials are. You cannot blame them, but once they get a "cushy" job, they are very anxious to keep it. Once a Government Department appoints a large number of officials, they will make it their business to find very good reasons why it should not be abolished. With great respect to hon. Members opposite, this is a kind of work that is essentially municipal in character, and that all over the country is left either to county councils or to municipalities, and the only excuse that the President of the Board of Trade put forward for this exceptional kind of legislation on the Second Reading of the Bill was the difficulty of pushing through Parliament at this stage a real reform of London government. Now these magic words that were to justify exceptional legislation are to be eliminated.
I understand—and I hope the Minister of Transport will make it clear—that he is going to accept an Amendment from the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) making this a temporary Measure, and limiting its operation to three years. It is most unfortunate that he did not utilise the
ingenuity of a Government Department to insert a, date and, at the same time, retain these words, because one knows that these temporary Measures have a way of being renewed from year to year. We have found that in reference to the Poor Law emergency legislation, which for about four years has been renewed, and I am afraid that, with all the force of an established new Department behind it, very good reasons will be found in three years' time for renewing this Measure. It will want a very strong force of public opinion to carry through these essential reforms, because this is not the only institution of this kind that is being or has been created owing to the chaotic condition of London government. We have a Water Board, a Metropolitan Asylums Board, a Port of London Authority, we are going to have an electricity authority, and now we are going to have this Ministry of Transport clothed with all these powers to interfere with the ramifications of London government. I shall be very reluctant to vote for this Amendment, but if it be really essential that it should be accepted, in order to ensure that the Bill should he made temporary in character, we may have to give way. I think a grave responsibility rests with the Minister for putting these words in the Bill, with all his knowledge, and then, on pressure, having to accept their deletion. I think we want some further explanation than a mere formal standing at the Box and accepting this Amendment without explanation.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: This is not the first time I have heard the speech that has just been delivered. It is interesting to look forward to what will happen in three years' time. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) evidently believes that the London traffic problem will be solved in three years' time, and that there will be no necessity for a Bill like this, but nobody who knows anything at all about the history of the last 25 years would suggest anything of that kind. It is necessary to have these traffic Clauses now, until the Greater London scheme comes along, but that Greater London scheme has been discussed for 25 years and has never come along yet, and it will not have come in three years' time. I
cannot understand how the Minister takes up his present position. He is always being bullied by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). Every time the hon. Member for South Hackney holds up the stick, the Minister gives way. The Minister supported this Clause as it is in Committee, and we supported him in doing so, but the reason why he accepts its deletion now is to make it possible to accept, a limiting Amendment at a later stage of the Bill. I do not know how the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) came to be identified with this particular Amendment, because, if these words are deleted now, the three years' limitation can go in, and then, in three years' time, because the Bill is going to die, and London traffic cannot be left in a chaotic condition, there will be a demand for something to be done with the Greater London scheme, and the hon. Member for Watford, who does not want the Greater London scheme, has done the very thing to open the sluice gates by moving this Amendment. I am afraid I cannot congratulate him.

Mr. HERBERT: I have nothing whatever to do with any suggestion of putting a time limit in the Bill.

Sir W. MITCHELL: The hon. Member does not realise yet. what he is doing. These words being in, they prevent the three years' limitation being moved, and he proposes to delete them. I shall be interested to see how the hon. Member's constituents at Watford three years hence regard this particular Amendment that he has moved.

Sir J. SIMON: On a point of Order. May I ask for your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? I understand that t he present Amendment is moved, and is accepted by the Minister, on the ground that it is the impression of some hon. Members that, unless these words were removed, it would be impossible hereafter to put a limit to the operation of the Bill. May I ask whether that really can be so, and whether it can possibly be out of order, if you state in Clause 1 that you are proposing to make provision in view of there not at present being a satisfactory scheme for London government, to say that your Bill shall come to an end at the end of three years?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I have already intimated that the Amendment in relation to the limitation of three years should be, moved on Clause 16. Therefore, I do not think there is anything with or without this Amendment to prevent the limiting Amendment being moved at a later stage.

Sir H. NIELD: The Majority Report of Lord Ullswater's Commission stated that in matters of transport and certain other matters it was not desirable that any particular territorial authority should have jurisdiction, but that a special authority should be set up to deal with the four questions which the Commission found, after prolonged inquiry, were matters which might be dealt with by a Central Board, namely, housing and town planning, transport, and two other subjects which were dealt with in their Report.

Mr. H. MORRISON: Surely there was no Majority Report of the Royal Commission? There were 10 members appointed, and the Report to which the hon. Member refers was signed by four members only, and the other four, two having resigned, in two separate Reports, accepted the principle of Greater London.

Sir H. NIELD: I am not going to discuss that question with the hon. Member. I am only going to say that when the Report had to be written there were four who did agree upon this question, and two others disagreed with the two other members. [Interruption.] I have something very pungent to say about that matter, if necessary, and the methods whereby one of the Commissioners cross-examined with a particular view be held, because I was subjected to that cross-examination—[An HON. MEMBER: "You had a rough time!"]—On the contrary—which proceeded from the fact that a certain member of the Commission produced certain confidential documents. I think, therefore, hon. Members had better let that chapter drop. What I want to call attention to is the findings of the Majority. They said:
We have already, in paragraph 46, stated the views of the London County Council with regard to this question. The opinions of the outside authorities are sum-
marised in paragraphs 118 to 122, and the various alternative schemes are set forth in paragraphs 126 to 182. Although the Council in their case, as put before us, claimed transport as a service proper to be assigned to the new central authority proposed by them"—
that was, their worthy selves-
they admitted in their evidence the impracticability of this solution of the problem so long as the local authorities themselves operate transport in competition with other undertakers.
That is to say, the Council proposed in this scheme to run their own trams, and run them in opposition to other means of transport.
Another objection to municipalising transport powers in London is that the regulation of traffic is largely a matter of police; and the police of London, except in the City, is in the hands of Your Majesty's Government. The local authorities appear to acquiesce in the maintenance of that system. There is a further general opinion that any centralised powers in relation to transport should extend to a wider area than that of Greater London. We are therefore of opinion that the proposed central authority is not a suitable body for the purpose of transport control.
That is the definite opinion of the majority, that is, the four out of the eight who were unanimous, and, as I say, two others quarrelled with the remainder. Therefore, I say that is a substantial reason for not interposing words of this character, which seek to give the go-by to the findings of that Commission, which sat for an interminable time, and took infinite pains to arrive at a solution. I am glad to think that the Minister of Transport will accept the omission of these words, which I think mischievous.

Major WHELER: I am exceedingly glad the Minister of Transport has accepted this Amendment, because he knows thoroughly well there are local authorities outside who view this scheme with the greatest possible apprehension. It has already been said in reference to the Commission that any idea of such extension of local government powers is not justified by the evidence put before them. Therefore, I am exceedingly glad the Minister has seen fit to withdraw these words, which might foreshadow some extension of these powers which, so far as the county I have the honour to represent is concerned, would be most strongly opposed.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr P. HARRIS:

On page 1, line 10, leave out the words from "districts" to end of Clause, and insert instead thereof the words,
each administrative county council. wholly or partly in the Metropolitan police area, in connection with the exercise and performance of the powers and duties in relation to traffic within the area described in the First. Schedule (hereinafter referred to as 'the London Traffic Area'), shall be the traffic authority for their area, and each such council shall be required to set up a statutory committee to advise as to the regulation of traffic within their area, each of such committees to be known as the statutory traffic committee, and for the purpose of giving advice and assistance to such committees a Secretary of State may appoint a representative of the Metropolitan police to serve on each of such committees.
(2) In order to co-ordinate the regulation of traffic within the London Traffic Area a joint committee shall be set up to give advice and assistance to the respective county councils within the area, five to represent the London County Council, two each to the administrative counties of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey and Essex, and one shall be representative of the Metropolitan police appointed by a Secretary of State.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment is out of order, because it is quite incomplete. It would require a great many other provisions.

Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 1, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words, "of the City of London and Metropolitan police districts," and to insert instead thereof the words, "described in the First Schedule to this Act."
10.0 P.M.
This Amendment must be taken in conjunction with the Amendment to add a Schedule to the Bill, and it is the intention of these two Amendments to alter the area over which this Bill shall extend. Some of us representing what are generally known as the Home Counties feel that it would be better to make the area a larger one, so as to extend it in order to cover, roughly speaking, what I may call the country routes of the London omnibus companies, at any rate, where there is any large amount of omnibus traffic from London, and those places outside London which are particularly congested, and where there are sometimes difficulties in the way of traffic. I hope, again on this occasion, the Government will accept this Amendment. I do net want to say very
much about it beyond this, that I move it especially at the request of the Local Government authorities for the County of Hertfordshire, and with the distinct and definite approval and consent of, I believe, the greater part, if not all, of the other local authorities responsible for the wider area, except those parts which are covered by the counties of Buckinghamshire and Berkshire. I do not know whether anything is going to be said or what attitude the Minister may take with reference to that. But that, at any rate, is a comparatively small part of the proposed larger area concerned. May I quote one example, which, I hope, will be a difficulty overcome in the future by a by-pass road, and that is the congestion and general block of the traffic passing through Watford and a number of places beyond, which is very bad indeed. There are several places that would come within the larger area, which might be materially dealt with by the better provisions in this Bill.

Sir W. BULL: I beg to second the Amendment.
A great deal of attention and a very great deal of care have been given to this Bill, first by the late Government, and also by the present Government. A most important part of the Bill is the Schedule of those districts which have to be included. It was carried in Committee that the police area should be the area covered. It will stultify the Bill if that be carried. Every single district in the original First Schedule was thought out. If the police area alone be chosen, the docks and other avenues from the East End of London will be entirely shut out. Therefore I hope the Government will see their way to allowing the First Schedule on the Amendment Paper to be carried. There is no particular magic about the police area in London. It was set up many years ago under very different conditions, and there is no scientific reason why this should be confined to that area. The minds of the advisers of the last Government and the present Government having been directed to this subject and, having considered the First Schedule, I do earnestly hope that those who want to make this, at any rate, a preliminary attempt to settle the London traffic problem, will
agree to that Schedule. There is no party question in it, or any question of combine or of anything of that sort, but it has been a thought-out scheme, and, therefore, I earnestly hope the Minister will accept it. I hope also that those opponents who do not believe in the Bill as a whole will give it, at any rate, a fair chance. There seems to be no question of principle involved.

Colonel ASHLEY: I sincerely hope that the House will accept this Amendment, and that the Minister of Transport will see his way to agree to it. In my opinion if this is not carried, and if the area over which the control is exercised is confined to the Metropolitan Police area and the City of London, from 50 to 75 per cent. of the usefulness of this Bill will be done away with. Unless we take a big view of this question of London traffic, and unless we go to a 20 to 25 miles radios from Charing Cross, we shall not be able to deal with the vast question of suburban traffic, and the approaches to London, which, to me, are almost more important than the question of the traffic in the streets of London itself. There are great improvements to be made outside the Metropolitan area, for there is what is more or less virgin ground on which to work. Here, in the centre of London, the expense is prohibitive in making great improvements. Many of these may well take place in the suburbs.
May I put it to the House, that it should support this Amendment, because in my opinion transportation is the basic industry of civilisation. On our means of transportation, and all that it implies, depends our economic and our social life, and on transportation depends the whole of the solving of the housing problem. Unless we are able, by better means of transport, to take our population out from the centres of the big towns, to house them outside and to, bring them back daily to their work, we shall never make really any great step in advance. Therefore, if we go about this matter in a niggardly spirit, and unless we take the whole thing in view, you will largely retard your housing schemes, which all parties in this House want to see solved at the present time.
To come down to concrete facts, I dare say some hon. Members here will
possibly be thinking of getting some fresh air at Ascot to-morrow. Some of them may feel that they may like to go down by road. In past years there has been considerable criticism of the traffic arrangements. There are four authorities under whose supervision these arrangements are attended to between the centre of London and Ascot. There is the Metropolitan police. Then you have the Chief Constible of Surrey; then the Chief Constable of Berkshire, and again the Metropolitan police. If you are going to pass this Bill with only the Metropolitan police area in it, and your coordination stops at that, the confusion to which I have referred will still run; but if you take up a 25 miles, that would include Ascot and the country thereabouts. That is one instance. If you stick to the Metropolitan police area, you exclude the whole of the suburban districts, which include towns like Windsor, Watford, Farnborough, and so on. I hope and trust for the sake, not only of the general traffic, but for the sake of the housing which is all important, that the House will agree to the Amendment.

Mr. RAFFETY: It seems to me that a well-defined recognised area like that of the Metropolitan police area that everybody knows should be the working area of an authority of this character. I should prefer that area for many reasons. This is a temporary Measure. We are assured that it will only be of a temporary character, and I am prepared to admit that I am looking forward to the time w hen municipal authority will be exercised in the jurisdiction that is now in the hands of the Minister temporarily. It seems to me that when the other municipal authority comes to be established the proper area for its activity will be the Metropolitan police district. I shall be surprised if any hon. Members, who have supported this 25 miles area, will then be prepared to extend the greater London authority to anything like so far as the 25 miles suggested, although this might be a very good argument for doing so. I think it is much more likely that the inevitable extension of the greater London authority will not go beyond the Metropolitan police district. It does, therefore, seem to me desirable that the decision come to in Committee to limit the functions of this Bill to the present well-known, well-defined, and easily worked
Metropolitan police district is a decision which the House should stand by. Therefore, I hope the Amendment will be rejected.

Mr. MILLS: It might be desirable for hon. Members to take a few very necessary tours round about outer London in order that when they are thinking of speaking or voting upon this question they may just exactly see the chaotic state of London at the moment. The late Minister of Transport speaks very feelingly about Dartford. I have a certain amount of sympathy with him, because it would take the wisdom of Solomon to define exactly what was erratic driving on these roads. To come, however, to the real point, the Metropolitan police area takes in places like Erith on the one hand and Bexley Heath on the other. Similarly in regard to the area mentioned by the late Minister of Transport. I have only been to see the Hunt Cup once in my life, and my party and I got there 20 minutes after the race had started. We set out at 11 o'clock in the morning from Charing Cross to go down by road. If for that reason only I would support the idea that one authority should replace all the vexatious interferences with development. I feel sure that if we could have a map provided, and put up in the tea-room, giving in simple outline the proposed development of the traffic roads leading into London it would help a good many Members of this House to under stand what a baffling problem, what a jig-saw puzzle, London really is in this matter

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I think it right to say that the County Council of Berkshire and the Corporation of Windsor are very strongly opposed to being included in the Schedule of this Bill. The circumstances and conditions of Windsor and the parish of Winkfield are very different from the suburban conditions of the North, East and South of London. The case for the schedule in respect of the Metropolitan police area is based very largely on the suburban character of the 25-mile radius, but the area. in the West, which is included, is very different from the area in other directions. The question of the Ascot traffic has been mentioned. How has it been regulated? The nearest point to Windsor in the Metropolitan Police area is Staines. There the traffic control is divided, and
the Metropolitan police, the Windsor police, and the Berkshire police have adopted a perfectly workable arrangement of the traffic, and there is no confusion of the motor traffic, so that part passes from Staines to the North-West and the rest through Egham, Englefield Green and Virginia, Water. No single authority, however powerful, could make any better arrangement. We in Windsor and Berkshire are very reluctant to be included in any grandiose scheme under the control of a London authority.
If this proposal be agreed to, the result will be the setting up of a dual authority and an undue interference with the rights of local authorities. It seems to me to be a bad thing to introduce that principle of interference with the existing rights of local authority, and the result will be that you will find the authorities of large cities throughout the country pointing to the precedent set up in London, in an endeavour to obtain control over traffic to a much larger extent. On the ground that at the present time the traffic is well managed, and that what is proposed would set up a system of dual control and interfere with the rights of local authorities, I shall oppose this Amendment.

Sir H. NIELD: I think the last speaker is confusing the direction of local traffic with the arrangements and general scheme as to what traffic should use roads in relation to their width and the character of the traffic. No one will deny that the conditions of motor traffic are such that the problem is now necessarily carried further out than was ever before contemplated. St. Albans, which has been mentioned, is outside the Metropolitan police district, but it is within the 25-mile radius. At St. Albans—and this is only an illustration of what is going on all around—there are lines of omnibuses at intervals of seven or 10 minutes travelling over rural roads, and this is also the case at places like Epsom, Leatherhead, Dorking, and so on. Indeed, it is only by the beneficient intervention of Providence that I am here to-night, having regard to the way in which omnibus, char-è-bane and other big traffic goes along the rural lanes of Surrey, and really it is no longer a question of local interest. This Bill is called the London Traffic Bill. but really
an Amendment of its Title is needed in order to indicate its real object, which is to regulate this new form of traffic over such an area round London that the roads may be rendered sufficiently safe. I wonder if my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) has contemplated the fact that by coming into this area he will probably get 75 per cent. grants from the Ministry of Transport for widening his roads? If the Berkshire County Council will wake up and consider the possibility of getting 75 per cent. of its expenditure in making large arterial and other roads, and for widening main roads, I think it will be disposed to agree to come into this scheme, which, I think, will leave the actual direction of the traffic in the hands of the present authorities. It would only have the effect of prescribing the roads, possibly, and giving such control as is necessary.
Once more I refer to this much-abused Report of the Royal Commission on London Government. Paragraph 267 of this Report says:
There was (i) a consensus of opinion that the limits proposed by the Advisory Committee of 1920, namely, 'the existing Metropolitan and City police areas or any extension thereof,' were too restricted; (ii) a considerable variation in the precise limits proposed as an alternative; and (iii) what we interpreted as a general feeling, not always clearly expressed in evidence, that any attempt to deal on special lines with a Metropolitan traffic area apart from the rest of Great Britain was open to criticism.
The first of these findings was that the police area was too restricted, and, therefore, they determined—and this is founded on the evidence which was given on behalf of several country councils and supported by local authorities—that the area of 25 miles from Charing Cross was the proper one, and that we ought not to confine ourselves merely to boundaries which were prescribed for totally different purposes, and which, so far as police are concerned, would, I venture to repeat, not be interfered with. Therefore, I hope that, if we are going to make an effective attempt to deal with the great question of motor traffic, extending, as it does, so much further than the old police district of London, we shall consent to restore this 25-mile area to the Schedule.

Mr. H. MORRISON: I hope it may he possible for us to consider these questions without relying with too much exclusive-
ness upon one of the Reports of the Royal Commission on London Government. After all, that was an exceedingly inconclusive Report, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), when he appointed the Commission, made it a qualification that they should not have any great experience of London government, because that might have biased them. Such a Commission, with the greatest respect in the world, does not appear to me to be entitled to be held up as altogether conclusive on these complicated matters. The area which was proposed in the original Bill, and which, I understand, is now proposed again, is an area which corresponds to no general local government area. I am not one of those who believe that the Metropolitan Police District is necessarily adequate to certain services of Greater London government. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken thinks the Metropolitan Police District itself is much too large for, say, county government affecting that area, and the thing I want to be clear about is what do the Government regard as a reasonable area for the government of greater London, because this area which the House is now fixing is bound to have intimate relation to any area which may be fixed for the future government of greater London so far as large-scale services are concerned. I believe all the reasoning of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is equally applicable to other large-scale services of municipal government in greater London. I believe if there is a case for this area as a traffic area it must follow logically and rationally that there is a similar case for a town planning area of at least the same magnitude.

Sir H. MELD: Hear, hear!

Mr. MORRISON: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman now to applaud me, but if hon. Members will read his evidence before the Royal Commission as to the difficulties of which he has himself told us, they will find that he had very different ideas as to the general question of the proper area for local government in greater London.

Sir H. NIELD: If the hon. Member had really studied my evidence, he would see that town planning and housing was put by me in the same category as transport.

Mr. MORRISON: Let the right hon. Gentleman have credit for that grace. If he puts transport, town planning and housing into an area corresponding with the first Schedule of the Bill as it was introduced, how can he reasonably argue at the same time that the education of the people whom you allow to live in that common area must not be by a municipal authority covering the same area and that water, main drainage and electricity should not be in the same area? Why this special virtue of transport, housing and town planning? When you have included those municipal services in a common area of this magnitude you are bound, unless you are going to regard local government as an aggregation of disconnected things, which you cannot, to agree that the related local government services must be administered by an authority covering a, similar area. That is the weakness of the position which is now being taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. He will remember that weakness when we come to discuss the area for the local authority to deal with the large scale services of greater London. I want to know from the Government, what area do they regard as appropriate for general municipal government in greater London? I have this in mind, that if now we fix this area under the Bill—the London traffic area—then when it comes to fixing the general municipal area the Government of the time will say that the traffic area is greater than the municipal area and therefore you cannot have traffic powers for the new greater London municipality. This is a real point of consideration on the principle that we are now discussing, and I wish the Government to enlighten us upon it, because 25 miles is a big area and the House ought to have some information.
If we take out the definition of the area as it now stands in the Bill, which is the Metropolitan and City police districts, we get another curious situation. Then there will be within the same Bill actually two areas of administration, in a Bill which presumably is intended to simplify things. So far as omnibus licensing is concerned,
and so far as the scheduling of approved routes is concerned, the area will be the Metropolitan and City police districts [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think so. If you examine Clauses 6 and 7 the authorities there are the licensing authorities of the Metropolitan and City police districts, and therefore all the part of the proposed area outside the Metropolitan police district will be a different area for certain purposes as set out by the Bill. Therefore it appears to me that the Bill is setting up two areas, one where all the powers of the Bill will be operative within the Metropolitan and City police district, and the 25-mile radius, an area where I cannot see that any effective powers are going to be in operation at all. I hope the Minister will assure the House, for the sake of hon. Members representing constituencies outside the proposed area, that there is to be no idea, as adumbrated by the right hon. Member opposite, that if you are a district in the area there is to be a 75 per cent. grant, and that if you are not in the area you do not get that grant. We cannot have the administration of Government grants on that basis. I did not know that there was a 75 per cent. grant; I thought 50 per cent. was the maximum. I hope that in the distribution of grants there will be equality of treatment between local authorities inside and outside the area.
I am aiming at getting a common local government area. The tendency is that we are getting a different area for every different service, and the consequence is that the problem of dealing with the Greater London Government is in a state of chaos. I should like to know from the Government, or from the President of the Board of Trade, who spoke with some effect when the Bill was previously before the House, what is the Government view as to the proper London area. If they think that a 25 miles' radius is the proper area for a Greater London authority, there is something to be said for making the 25 miles' area the area for this Bill, but if they argue subsequently that the general area should be something else, then there is objection to the House passing this area now.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question of the future Government of London does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. GOSLING: I cannot go into all these matters with my hon. Friend now. For the moment, I am concerned with the congestion of traffic in the London streets, and, therefore, I hope the hon. Member will support me in this, because I do not think we are going to get rid of the congestion on the London streets unless we have this Amendment in the Bill. With regard to the eastward extension beyond the Metropolitan police area, the case is very strong. The Metropolitan police area does not include Dartford, Northfleet or Gravesend on the south side of the river, or Tilbury on the north side. The Dartford and Bexley tramways have a physical connection with the London tramway system, and run out as far as Horns Cross on the Gravesend road. The exclusion of this district would withdraw from the purview of the Advisory Committee the construction of the suggested tunnel under these lower reaches of the Thames. With regard to new arterial roads, unless the London traffic area is extended beyond the limits of the Metropolitan police area the Advisory Committee will he unable properly to consider the question of the improvement of the approaches by road to London. That is a question which lies at the heart of many traffic difficulties.
Take some of the new arterial roads under construction. Twenty-two miles of the new Southend road lie almost entirely outside the Metropolitan police area, as does the whole of the new Purfleet-Tilbury road. The Barnet and Watford by-passes, which will greatly facilitate the approach to London from the north-west, both start well outside the Metropolitan police area. In the same way, the Farnborough and Orpington by-passes, going southwards, emerge at a point on the Hastings road outside the Metropolitan police area. The improvements on the Folkestone road between Farningham and Wrotham are entirely outside the area. The Metropolitan police area does not even extend to Swanley Junction. The great reconstruction of the old Watling Street between Dartford and Chatham, which will enormously improve traffic conditions on the road to Dover, lies entirely outside the Metropolitan police area. Some hon. Members do not realise that you cannot get the inside right unless you get the outside right. We must not have the powers limited merely against the inside authorities if we are to succeed. I would
appeal to hon. Members once more to help us to pass this Bill as rapidly as possible, so that it may be put into force without delay, and I hope that this Amendment will be carried unanimously.

Mr. P. HARRIS: I have not been convinced by hon. Members or by the Minister of Transport in favour of this very large extension. We had a very detailed discussion in Committee and deliberately decided that the practical and proper thing to do was to limit the working of this Bill to a well known area, the Metropolitan police area. A very important argument is that the administration of the Act will be largely in the hands of the Metropolitan police. They are to take a very active part in carrying out the Act. Outside the Metropolitan police district you come into direct contact with the police under the county authorities, and under the new organisation they will have to take directions from two different masters. The county police outside the Metropolitan area will have to carry out instructions from the First Commissioner and the Minister of Transport on the one hand, and on the other hand from the county councils. I am informed that the County Councils' Association have almost unanimously declared against so many counties being brought within the purview of this Bill. This Bill is going to take the administration from the county council in the counties of Essex, Kent, Middlesex, Berks, Buckingham, Hertford and Surrey.

Colonel ASHLEY: They all agree except Berkshire.

Mr. HARRIS: I have no doubt that the influence of my right hon. Friend has had a considerable effect, but he was very careful to exclude his own constituency, the New Forest Division of Hampshire, and the hon. Member for Chatham was also careful to exclude that borough and they showed great knowledge of what they were doing in this matter. We heard with great interest the revelation of what has been going on behind the scenes by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield). He gave us an insight into what is going on. He said that unless these counties come under the purview of the Ministry of Transport they might not get the advantage of their contributions to the main roads.

Sir H. NIELD: To the improvements.

Mr. HARRIS: If that is the position it would be very interesting. If my hon. Friends from Scotland, Wales, or Yorkshire want to get assistance for their arterial roads, and the widening of streets, are we to understand that they have to hand over the roads to the tender mercies of the Minister of Transport? I cannot understand why the Minister of Transport has been so modest.

Mr. GOSLING indicated dissent.

Mr. HARRIS: I understand that the Minister has repudiated his fellow conspirator the right hon. Member for Ealing, and that this bribe is not to be received. So you do not get even that advantage. I cannot understand the modesty of the Ministry. Why stop at the artificial boundary of a 25-miles limit? Everybody knows that to-clay motor coaches go as far as Brighton and Hastings. Within a day it is quite easy to travel by motor coach within a 50-miles radius of London. One of the most congested roads from London is the Portsmouth road. It is largely occupied by traffic to Bournemouth. The boundary proposed is entirely artificial. You can make a case for the Metropolitan police area, owing to the chaotic condition of London government. But the same conditions do not apply to areas 25 miles from London. There you have schemes of local government carefully thought out by the local councils, and there is neither friction nor difficulty. No effective case has been made out for the extension of this Bill to a 25-mile radius which would not equally apply to an area 50, 75 or 100 miles from the centre of London. For these reasons I hope that the House will endorse the deliberate decision of the Committee and confine the Bill to the Metropolitan police area.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: If a mere Scotsman may be allowed to intervene—

Hon. MEMBERS: They all come to London.

Mr. MACLEAN: And glad they are to get back again, not merely because of the congestion of traffic in London, but because of other things. I understand that the Amendment referred to has been
accepted. Seeing that it has been moved by a private Member and not by the Government, and that it is contingent upon what appears a page and a half later on in the Order Paper, where reference is made to the places which it is proposed shall be included within the area, I would like to ask the Members responsible for the Amendment, and the Minister, whether they have the authority of the districts which are scheduled to be included within the new transport area? As far as I am aware, this is the first time that there has been acceptance of a private Member's Amendment which will impose such a revolutionary change upon the administration of certain districts. [Laughter.] It is evident that the word "revolutionary" causes the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) some amusement. Let me say "such reactionary proposals." The whole tendency of this Bill is reactionary in the extreme; the whole tenour of it is anti-social. It proposes to place in the hands of a combine the travelling facilities, not only of the people within London, but of the people who will come from all the areas mentioned in the schedule.

Viscount CURZON: Would you make the same remark about the Greater London area as well?

Mr. MACLEAN: We cannot all afford to go about in fast motor-cars, and I would point out to the Noble Lord that what he mentions is quite a different question. Mr. Speaker has already said that certain statements would be out of order, and, consequently, I do not propose to follow the bad example of the Noble Lord. What I am really concerned about, however, is that we, as Members of Parliament from all parts of the United Kingdom, should be asked to agree with the Minister in the acceptance of a private Member's Amendment which seeks to include all these districts in an area to he supervised by a certain Committee. Where counties or boroughs or parishes or townships are sought to be brought into a particular area or under the authority of a particular Committee, they have a right to be heard if they object to such inclusion. I am astounded that the Minister with his bland manner should advance to the Box and, having read a few sentences from a paper which
conveyed no information on the Debate which had gone on previously on this Amendment, should accept the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT: I do not know it the hon. Member was present when I introduced this Amendment, but I specially mentioned that it was moved, not merely with the concurrence of but at the request of some of the authorities and with the concurrence of all of them except those to which I referred, namely, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am glad to have that assurance, but it is remarkable that the assurance should have been conveyed to, a private Member and not to the Government. We should be quite clear as to, what we are doing. I do not desire that any hardship should be imposed upon counties or boroughs or upon the people residing in them with regard to traffic, but we should have an assurance that these people desire to be brought in, and. the hon. Member states that only some of these authorities desire it. [H. MEMBERS: "All except two."] Even two have a right to be excluded, and they should not be brought in against their will. [Interruption.] I am not concerned with the views of other hon. Members. I am advocating my own views, and I am not going to impose tyranny on anyone. I submitted to five years' tyranny in this House from the Coalition Government and the Tory Government, and I am having no more of it. As this Amendment presupposes the acceptance of the schedule contingent upon it, I want an assurance that the people residing in these districts will have an opportunity of stating their case if they object to inclusion in the new area. The House should not persist in any desire to place these people or any other section of the community at the tender mercies of the combine

Mr. GOSLING: I am glad that the hon. Member is now beginning to take an interest in this Bill.

Mr. MACLEAN: Why "now"?

Mr. GOSLING: Had the hon. Member studied the Bill previously, he would know that the proposal contained in this Amendment was part of the original Bill, and that the original Bill was made up mainly by agreement and the great bulk of the places named in the Schedule were placed there by agree-
ment—the overwhelming majority of them. The only point of substance which the hon. Member made was as to whether anybody should be left out who disagreed. You could not possibly make up that Schedule unless you brought in those who disagreed, more particularly when they are in such a small minority. We would not have had this Bill bad it not been that it was the outcome of arrangements, and the Schedule which it is now proposed to put in is one which was in the original Bill. It was slipped out in Committee, I think by accident, because most of those who helped it out are now helping it in.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The Amendment that has now been accepted was defeated in Committee, and I was surely within my rights in wanting to know whether assurances had been received from those districts.

Viscount CURZON: I hope the House will not be impressed by what I can only describe as the "dog in the manger" attitude of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) and the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). Had the proposal been to constitute the London County Council as traffic authority and to give it an area of 50 miles, they would have jumped at it. The London Metropolitan police district was fixed. I believe, some 80 years ago. Surely we have progressed even in the minds of the reactionary Members for South Hackney and Bethnal Green, and surely they have grown up a little bit since 90 years ago. The House would be wise to pass this Amendment, which seeks to keep pace with modern conditions.
The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith), who I am sorry is not here—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here now"]—in a speech on the Committee stage of this Bill—it is to be found in column 226 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—Said it was not unusual for one man to have to carry as many as six licences between here and Guildford. Omnibuses, he said, had to carry as many as six licences between Windsor and Slough. If it is proposed to cover a larger area that form, of course, will remain. It is much better to have one licensing authority. There are a good many reasons why this Bill should go through, but not nearly enough notice has been taken of what I think is
the most important point urged by the Minister of. Transport, namely, the Tilbury Tunnel. One of the great schemes for relieving London traffic is to keep the through traffic outside London. That can only be effectively done by constructing such schemes as that of the Tilbury Tunnel and by circular roads, portions of Metropolitan police are if they were carried out. In the case of Windsor, we have one of the most congested arteries of traffic to be found near London, with the possible exception of Colnbrook. I would submit to him that he would be wise not to persist in his opposition to its being included in this scheme, as it may possibly eventually give a sew bridge over the Thames near Eton, or provide for the great necessity of repairing the existing bridge at Datchet. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his opposition to this Clause.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. KEENS: The suggestion of the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), that those Members who represent London would, if this had been a county council scheme, have offered no objection whatever to the 50-mile radius, does not apply to me. I represent some portion of the County of Buckingham, and, so far as I know, and I have spoken in nearly every place to which this proposal applies, I can find no person there in favour of it, and neither can I find that any authority has consented to it, for they all prefer to be kept outside. I am certain that any suggestion of bribery in the way of building bridges or giving additional grants for main roads will not affect the authorities in Buckinghamshire in their desire not to be included in this Bill. Among the parts of Buckinghamshire proposed to be included are Chalfont St. Peter and Chalfont St. Giles and the rural district of Amersham, and when I think of these terribly congested districts and the awful amount of traffic to be controlled I do not wonder they do not desire to be brought within the Bill. I also find that the Minister of Transport has power to prescribe the conditions subject to which at times horses, cattle, sheep or other animals may be led or driven through the streets, and I find in the definition Clause that the expression "street" or "road" includes any highway or bridge carrying a highway, lane,
footway, square or alley through which a passage can be obtained. Therefore the Minister of Transport may at his discretion prescribe the time at which cattle may be led through these congested districts—the time at which they may come out of a farmyard to go down a green lane. The authorities in these parts desire under no circumstances whatever to be brought within this Bill. On the other side we find there are hon. Members who are anxious to extend the area from time to time. The Minister of Transport said the other day that he would have nothing to do with this Bill unless he had power to bring all authorities under it, but surely there is no reason why these outlying districts should be brought within the scope of the Bill. Certainly, as far as the local authorities of this country are concerned, they view with the utmost dismay these encroachments upon their powers by a central authority. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the parish pump?"] The hon. Member may talk about the parish pump, but

local authorities are particularly jealous of their areas. I live in a county which probably has the finest roads in the country. It is, indeed, said that motorists have declared that they only get one bump and that is when they cross the county border. On behalf of that portion of the county of Buckingham which is proposed to be included, I protest against their inclusion without their consent, which consent I know they have not given.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. CLYNES: It would, I think, be undesirable not to dispose of this Amendment. At Question Time I said we should move at about 11 o'clock that the further consideration of the Bill be adjourned. Therefore, I would ask the House now to proceed to a Division on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words 'of the City of London and Metropolitan Police' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 238.

Division No. 94.]
AYES.
[11.2 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk, Peel


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rea, W. Russell


Barclay, R. Noton
Hindle, F.
Rees, Capt. J. T, (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Hobhouse, A. L.
Remer, J. R.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston)
Royle, C.


Birkett, W. N.
Hopklnson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.


Black, J. W.
Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland,Northn.)
Savery, S. S.


Bonwick, A.
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Simpson, J. Hope


Brass, Captain W.
Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Briant, Frank
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Brunner, Sir J.
Kay, Sir R. Newbaid
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Burman, J. B.
Kenyon, Barnet
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lord


Clarry, Reginald George
Laverack, F. J.
Starmer, Sir Charles


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lessing, E.
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Loverseed, J. F.
Stranger, Innes Harold


Costello, L. W. J.
McCrae, Sir George
Sunlight, J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dodds, S. R.
Maden, H.
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Marks, Sir George CroySon
Vivian, H.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Ward. G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Mond, H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


England, Colonel A.
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)


Falconer, J.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Finney, V. H.
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Fletcher, Lieut.-Commander R. T. H.
Murrell, Frank
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Foot, Isaac
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Maj. A.S. (Kent,Sevenoaks)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Willison, H.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Gorman, William
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Wintringham, Margaret


Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Owen, Major G.
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetlard)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)



Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Phillipps, Vivian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Pringle, W. M. R
Mr. Keens and Mr. Athoil


Harris, Percy A.
Raffety, F. W.
Robertson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Purcell, A. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Raine, W.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Alden, Percy
Groves, T.
Raynes, W. R.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richards, R.


Amman, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Apsiey, Lord
Harland, A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ashiey, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Ayles, W. H.
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Baker, Walter
Haycock, A. W.
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burniey)
Romeril, H. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex, Enfield)
Royce, William Stapleton


Banton, G.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Barnes, A.
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Barnett, Major Richards W.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hoffman, P. C.
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Scurr, John


Becker, Harry
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Sexton, James


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Hudson, J. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston).


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hughes, Collingwood
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Blundell, F. N.
Isaacs, G. A.
Sherwood, George Henry


Bourne, Captain R. C.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smillie, Robert


Brittain, Sir Harry
Jewson, Dorothea
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Buckle, J.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Bullock, Captain M.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Spence, R.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Kennedy, T.
Spoor, B. G.


Cape, Thomas
Kindersiey, Major G. M.
Stamford, T. W.


Cassels, J. D.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Samuel Strang


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prismth. S.)
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Lawson, John James.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Church, Major A. G.
Lee, F.
Sullivan, J.


Clarke, A.
Lindley, F. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Climie, R.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
MacDonald, R.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cockeriir, Brigadier-General G. K.
McEntee, V. L.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Compton, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Toole, J.


Cope, Major William
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Tout, W. J.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
McLean, Major A.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
March, S.
Varley, Frank B.


Crittall, V. G.
Mariey, James
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Viant, S. P.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Maxton, James
Warne, G. H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Meller, R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dawson, Sir Philid
Middleton, G.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otfey)


Dickson, T.
Mills, J. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dixey, A. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dukes, C.
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Weir, L. M.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morel, E. D.
Wells, S. R.


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellity)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)
Welsh, J. C.


Egan, W. H.
Murray, Robert
Westwood, J.


Elliot, Walter E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Elveden, Viscount
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Whiteley, W.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
O'Grady, Captain James
Wignail, James


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington)


Gates, Percy
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Pease, William Edwin
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Pennefather, Sir John
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Penny, Frederick George
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gillett, George M.
Perring, William George
Wright, W.


Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perry, S. F.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Phillipson, Mabel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Potts, John S.
Kennedy.


Greenall, T.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 16, leave out the word "Districts," and insert instead thereof the word "District."—[Mr. Gosling.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Gosling.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed, agreed!

Captain ELLIOT: I never heard of a Minister not saying something officially on the Second Reading of a Bill. I should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman explain the Bill. After all, there are several things to be said about the Bill, and I think the House is entitled to hear the Minister. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, particularly the rights and privileges of minorities, that we are entitled to hear the explanation of the Minister before we are asked to vote.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed, agreed!

Mr. ADAMSON: This Bill proposes to amend Section 13 of the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, which relates to disqualifications for the office of town councillor. It provides that Section 13—
shall have effect as if at the end of paragraph (d) of Sub-section (5) there were added the words or any society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1913, or any amendment thereof'.
The object of the amendment is to remove the disqualification from members of a co-operative society which has contracts with a town council in Scotland from being elected or acting as town councillors in view of the provisions of Section 13 of
the Town Councils Act, 1900. The law in Scotland and England on this point was the same prior to 1906, when an English Bill—the Municipal Corporations Amendment Act, 1906—was passed without opposition. This enabled a person holding shares in a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 and 1895, to sit as a borough councillor without disqualification. This Bill provides for the members of co-operative societies in Scotland being placed on an equal footing with the members of cooperative societies in England. It also provides for the members of those societies being placed on the same footing, as shareholders in public companies, such as railway companies and limited liability companies under the Companies Acts, who are not disqualified from sitting on a town council in Scotland. The Bill proposes to put members of cooperative societies on the same footing as is enjoyed by other companies. The injustice of continuing the disqualification of members of co-operative societies in Scotland is so obvious that I do not think there is any reason for me making a long speech or for the House discussing this Bill at any length. The case for the Bill is so strong that I hope it will be treated as a non-contentious measure.

Captain ELLIOT: I am quite in agreement with the Secretary for Scotland and I do not want to treat this Bill as contentious. We did, however, require a few words of explanation. The eleven o'clock Rule was suspended to allow this Bill to be discussed. After all, the position of co-operative societies is one on which there has been considerable discussion and we find considerable complaint that the private trader is subject to disabilities to which his powerful competitors are not subjected—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"!]. I am not saying that the complaint is right or wrong, but that there are such complaints. I do not think any hon. Member will deny. I remember the position which arose over the Corporation Profits Tax, and I recollect getting into considerable trouble with shopkeepers and private traders because I voted for the exemption of co-operative societies from the Corporation Profits Tax. That, I think, is sufficient to show that I am not taking this up in any biased spirit against the co-operative society. I have, however, had complaints, and I am sure
many Members on both sides of the House have had complaints, from the private traders, that a Bill such as this will place them under a disability as compared with their competitors, the co-operative societies. The Bill proposes the removal from the co-operative society of a disability to which the private trader will still be subject. The private trader or member of a private company will still be subject the disability that he will not be allowed to sit on the local authority, or, if he sits on the local authority, he will not be allowed to try and get business for his particular concern, whereas a co-operative society representative sitting on the local authority will be allowed to try and get business for his concern.
The right hon. Gentleman brought out what I think was a very powerful argument for his view of the case, namely, that this was merely to even up the law as between Scotland and England. If, as he says, this provision was made law in England as long ago as 1906, was passed without opposition, and has worked smoothly ever since, that is a. serious argument in practice for his Bill now being allowed to go through. But I do think that if a disability is to be removed from the co-operative society, while leaving still subject to the disability the person with whom the society is competing, namely, the private shopkeeper or the private company, the House ought to consider whether it is laying an injustice upon one set of citizens as compared with another. In many cases the co-operative society is exempt from burdens from which the private trader is not exempt. At present it is exempt from the Corporation Profits Tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "Everyone will be shortly!"]—Yes, I quite admit that, but it has been exempt for years, in spite of a recommendation by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury that, if a Corporation Profits Tax were imposed, the co-operative societies should be subject to it. From that recommendation, made by a Labour Member, the co-operative societies were exempted by the votes of Unionist Members. I hope the co-operative societies will remember that, although they have shown very little sign of doing so so far.
There are other things, in the way of Income Tax and so on, which do not press upon the co-operative society to anything
like the extent to which they press upon the private trader. Consequently, I am inclined to the appeal of the Secretary for Scotland not to enter at any length into the arguments of this case. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen desire me to argue at length against this case, I can only say to them that I attach more weight to the appeal of the Secretary for Scotland for brevity than to their appeal for discursiveness, and, consequently, I do not intend to accede to their request. If the right hon. Gentleman assures me that this reform went through without opposition in 1906, and that there have since been no complaints with regard to the working of the Act in England, I should be disposed to offer no further opposition to the Bill at the present stage, though, as I have said, it will require opposition, or at any rate criticism, at further stages. Can the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues give me any information on these points? Has there been any complaint as to the working of this Act in England, either as to unfairness to the private trader or in any other way, since 1906? Has there been any opposition to this or any demand for alteration?

Mr. ADAMSON: It went through without opposition and, so far as I know, there has not been a single complaint.

Orders of the Day — CHINA INDEMNITY APPLICATION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. HOPE: On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether this Bill should not have been introduced on a Financial Resolution? Its object is to divert to other purposes monies which by Statute are directed to be applied to the New Sinking Fund and it seeks to repeal the provisions of the Finance Act, 1906, which directs that these monies shall be applied to that purpose. By the Act of Sir Stafford Northcote of 1875, ac amended by the Finance Act of last year, it is enacted that a certain definite sum shall be applied to the purpose of the. New Sinking Fund in each year. The withdrawal of monies under this Bill will
cause a deficit in the Sinking Fund, which will have to be made up pro tanto by a further charge upon the Exchequer. Therefore it would appear—though I know the difficulties of this kind of question—that a new charge will be created by this Bill. This is not an ordinary case of interception of revenue. It is not merely an interception of revenue in the ordinary sense. It is an interception of earmarked revenue. The Act of 1906 directs that this revenue shall be applied to the purposes of the New Sinking Fund. The Statute of 1875 and the Statute of last year direct that a certain fixed sum has to be devoted to that Sinking Fund. Therefore by the withdrawal of one source of revenue a gap is created. That cannot be left alone. It has to be made up by Statute by a further charge on the Exchequer. Therefore I would ask you whether, in default of a Financial Resolution, the Bill can proceed.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Bill has been carefully examined from that point of view by my advisers and the opinion arrived at is that a Money Resolution is not required in a case of this kind. The ground is that this deals with monies that have not reached the Exchequer. It is a. practice for which, I am afraid, there are rather numerous precedents in the last 20 years, and I feel bound by what has been done in these various cases. It would be in fact a new departure for me to take at this time of day, to go back, and say that a measure of this character must be founded on a Money Resolution.

Mr. HOPE: Might I ask whether you have considered this point; whether, in the other cases, it was not merely a question of intercepting revenue and thereby causing the general revenue of the country to be less, whereas in this case it is to create a deficit in a fund which has to be made up by Statute out of the Exchequer, and whether there is any other case where this would apply where the revenue has been earmarked, and so, when it is withdrawn a deficit is created which has by Statute to be made up? The ordinary case of interception of revenue to the Local Taxation Account and similar matters would not have that effect. The revenue might be diminished but that might be made up by curtailment of the estimates. In this case no economy is
possible in the Sinking Fund, because the amount has to be made up by Statute, which is not the case with the ordinary supply of the year.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the financial effect is exactly the same. There was a case, I recollect, on an Amendment moved by Mr. K[...]Kenna, to anticipate some revenue from the Estate Duties, for the purpose of further diminishing the National Debt, and that was held at the time to be in order. It seems to me it would be taken from one fund, and would have to be made up somewhere else, for the purpose of the financial balance sheet. I think the cases are parallel.

Mr. HOPE: If I remember that ruling, it caused considerable surprise at the time. Mr. McKenna's proposal was not to diminish the amount that was to go into the Sinking Fund, but it was actually to increase the Sinking Fund by earmarking a portion of the Estate Duties for that purpose. The effect of the present Bill, so far from being analagous with that, is absolutely to divert revenue which is already ear-marked.

Mr. PRINGLE: May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the precedent you have quoted is not on all-fours with the present Bill? On that occasion, as far as my recollection goes, Mr. McKenna's Motion was earmarking the revenues, whereas in this Bill, as I understand it, revenues which are earmarked for a specific purpose are being diverted. I submit that there is no precedent for the diversion of revenues which are specifically earmarked, without a Financial Resolution.

Mr. CLIMIE: Is it in order for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to take up the time of the House by trying to show their knowledge? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am a new Member, and I want to know whether it is in order for them to take up the time of the House trying to show what they know.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think hon. Members are, rightly, vigilant about the financial rules which have been laid down in this House, because they are really the foundation of our liberties. I am always glad to hear hon. Members put points to me in this way. I am afraid that I am bound by the precedents of the last 20 years, which have caused me to rule that this Bill can proceed without a money Resolution.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill is to make provision for the conversion of money paid on account of the China Boxer indemnity. The British share of the indemnity which the Chinese Government was called upon to pay in 1900 was rather over £7,500,000, which was to bear interest at 4 per cent. per annum, and was to be redeemed by annual instalments spread over 39 years terminating in 1940. By the Finance Act, 1906, the payments were applied to the reduction of the National Debt. In February, 1918, it was agreed by the powers concerned to suspend payments of the indemnity for five years, and no payment has, therefore, been made from 1917 to 1922. The suspended payments were to fall due from 1940 to 1945. In 1922 the question of resuming the suspended payment had to be decided. Germany and Austria forfeited their shares, and the payment of the Russian share ceased. The United States of America were prepared to remit the remaining portion of their share, and France was prepared to utilise her share partly for the Banque Industrielle de China, and partly for the education of Chinese in France. The Japanese Government decided to allocate their share of the indemnity for agricultural purposes in China. It was on 22nd December, 1922, that His Majesty's Representative at Pekin informed the Chinese Government that His Majesty's Government had decided to devote the proceeds of the Boxer indemnity to purposes mutually beneficial to China and Great Britain. This was received with great cordiality and satisfaction, and numerous suggestions were made for the allocation of the fund.
The money is not to be remitted in the sense of handing it over to the Chinese for their uncontrolled use, but is to be at the disposal of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for such purposes as may be considered mutually beneficial to British and Chinese interests. What we have in view are largely educational and cultural purposes. In view of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1906, this Bill becomes necessary. When the Bill has been passed, a committee is to be set up to investigate the
allocation of the funds and to decide the best means of securing their satisfactory administration. We are: approaching several individuals, but we are not yet in a position to announce the names of the committee or of the chairman, but naturally we have invited Chinese co-operation in the disposal of the funds. Under the terms of reference the committee is asked, in view of the decision of His Majesty's Government, to devote the instalments of the Boxer indemnity to purposes mutually beneficial to British and Chinese interests, to investigate the different objects to which such payments should be allocated, and the best means of securing the satisfactory administration of the funds and to make such representations as may seem desirable.
I notice on the Order Paper a notice of an Amendment for the rejection of this Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel), and I think, judging by the questions which he has addressed to the Government on this point, that he wishes to raise the question of the trade marks complication in China. Without minimising at all the importance of that question—and it is an extremely interesting one, which is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government very closely—we do not think that this fund should be used as a lever for the settlement of any questions which are outstanding at the present time. As far as possible we want to confine it to educational and cultural purposes. Perhaps the House would like to know how the other Powers concerned are disposing of their shares of the indemnity. In Japan legislation was passed through the Diet last year, and an advisory committee has been appointed in Tokio. No scheme has been formulated as yet, but we gather that it is the intention to maintain in Pekin and Shanghai educational institutions for Chinese and Japanese students, and to found a medical university. In the United States a. resolution was passed by the Senate, and referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, authorising the President to remit part of the Boxer indemnity in order further to develop the educational and cultural activities of China. France intends to use her balance partly to resuscitate tare Banque Industrielle de Chine, and some is also to be used for
cultural purposes. The Soviet Government lately set aside portion of the indemnity to be devoted to education among the Chinese people. One can see by that that in all these cases the mutual advantages of the Chinese and the countries concerned are taken fully into account, and that this idea of education is permanently before them. I would like to quote a passage from the writings of a Chinese gentleman representing Chinese associations so as to show the enthusiasm with which the proposal is being received in China. He says:
Our British friends may well rest assured that they have done an act more significant, morally as well as otherwise, than, perhaps, they themselves have up to the present realised. This example set by Great Britain is, in fact, a real step taken towards the promotion of international peace. Nothing is better than one individual example, and the example of this Power is bound to have a far-reaching effect and influence.
We have had many legacies and commitments left to us by our predecessors—legacies which we have brought forward sometimes with reluctance and often with very little enthusiasm. But I can safely say that in this case I recommend this Measure to the acceptance of the House with the utmost confidence in its wisdom and in the undoubted beneficent results which may be expected from its operation.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: As I was a member of the Foreign Office Committee which inquired into this question two years ago, I wish to make one or two observations. The Committee inquired at some length into the question of the using of the whole of the Boxer Indemnity, or some part of it, for the stimulation of Chinese education on British lines. I do net know why the report of that Committee has never been published. I should have thought that. it would have been a very good thing to have had the report published now, particularly in view of the fact that the Under-Secretary has stated that he contemplates the setting up of a further Committee, apparently to go over much the same ground and to make further recommendations. Whilst I agree generally with the principle of using at any rate some part of the Indemnity for the encouragement of Chinese education on British lines, the views of the people best qualified to judge two years ago were by no means unani
Mous. More than one of them expressed a doubt whether the contemplated ex-penditure would be as satisfactory in results as many of us hoped it would be. We have behaved very generously to China in recent years, and that fact should not be forgotten. In 1917 we allowed China a moratorium of five years, during which time no indemnity instalments were required from her. At the end of that period we went further than many of the other great Powers in accepting an arrangement under which the. back payments due during the moratorium would not be payable until 1940. The House should remember that fact in considering this further request for an extension of generous treatment to Republic. Speaking fer myself, I do not object in principle to the proposal of this Bill: but there is one objection in detail which I hold very strongly. The Government are asking the House to give. them a, free hand to distribute the money exactly as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs may desire. I think that is an objectionable way of dealing with the money. The Under-Secretary has said that he contemplates a Committee for advising the Government as to how this money should he spent. Either that Committee should be a statutory Committee under the terms of the Bill or the details of the expenditure should be set out in the Schedule. As a Member of the former Committee. I heard a. great deal of evidence from Sir John Jordan, the Vice-Chancellor of Hong Kong University and other experts as to how money could best be spent in stimulating Chinese education. Before this Bill roaches the Statute Book some details of methods of expenditure should be incorporated in it. My own view is that while we should allow the Bill to get a Second Reading to-night, we should. during the Committee stage insist either on the details being included or on the Committee to which the Under-Secretary referred being made a statutory Committee with powers definitely assigned to it in reference to the spending of the money. I am in favour of the general principle of the Bill and hope the House will give it a Second Reading.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I beg to move to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
As the Under-Secretary has said I put some questions in reference to this Bill before putting down the Motion for its rejection. As far as the Bill itself is concerned, there is no doubt the extension of education in China would do an immense amount of good but the Under-Secretary forgets that the other countries which have already consented to the distribution of the indemnity did so before they were aware of the action which the Chinese Government was taking in reference to commercial interests in China, and circumstances alter cases. During the interval since our Allies and friends disposed of the Boxer indemnity to China, the Chinese Government introduced a Measure—the Chinese trade mark law—which has allowed Chinese merchants and manufacturers to pirate the trade marks of British merchants and manufacturers—marks which have been established in the China market for 100 years. The House should realise that the people in that vast country do not examine goods before buying because they know the reliability of the "chop" of the British firm. They buy Manchester goods 1,000 miles away from a port with, say, the "white horse" brand upon them or steel branded with the well-known British marks. I am informed that these marks for Manchester goods, steel goods, tin plates and other articles produced in this country are being registered in the Chinese office, wherever it may be at the present time, in the names of Chinese subjects. I am speaking from the experience which we had in Japan 20 years ago in regard to a similar trade marks law under which the Japanese at once registered the marks of the various British firms, and they had great difficulty in getting them back. They only did so by the payment of very large sums. It is important for the public and for Members of this House to know what are the difficulties of merchants and manufacturers in trading in China. These Chinese industries may make inferior articles, and irretrievably damage the good reputation of the British manufacturers before they could get their own trade marks back. This House has passed a Bill to give facilities for British trade by the granting of large credits; but I am asking the House to do something to protect the
merchants and manufacturers of this country in a way which will not cost a penny to this country. I do not ask for the rejection of this Bill. What I asked the Prime Minister in my question was, whether he would postpone the introduction of this Bill so as to be able to negotiate with the Chinese Government, and say to them that public opinion, and the; opinion of the House of Commons, made it impossible to get the Bill through unless the Chinese Government were prepared to deal fairly and properly with the industrialists and merchants of this country.
We have been told that the Americans have given the amount of their indemnity for purposes of education in China. I do not want to say anything against our American friends, but the Americans have schools in China, and we do not know that the amount which they are giving for education may not be allotted to the American schools. We know perfectly well that in the past many of the large American industrials, especially in the engineering trade, have been in the habit of educating Chinese in the universities. They have brought them into their works and educated them as engineers, and when they went back to China it was as the emissaries of the industrials in the United 'States. When we are asked to tender, say, for certain works, we invariably find that the Chinese engineer has drawn up the specification in such a form as to render it impossible for us to get an order, for it has been drawn to suit the factory in which he had been educated in America. We may find that the American indemnity has been allocated as the money was allocated in the case of Japan. I suppose the Americans raised the largest sum of any nation for the Japanese earthquake fund, but the bulk of that money was given, not for the benefit of the Japanese, but for the benefit of Americans resident in Japan, so that they might reinstate their property and restore their industries. I know perfectly well it is useless to divide on this The object of my protest against this Bill is to insist that we should have something to negotiate with. None of the other countries who have given their consent had before them a grievance like ours, in the pirating of British trade marks and patents. It is a great injustice to British industry, and to the merchants who have created British trade in
China, that they should be thrown over in this way by the Government, who ought to have in view the interests of the working classes of this country.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel) in what he has said with regard to China and trade of that country. I feel that we do not sufficienty realise the mountainous chaotic position of China at the present time. Any additional benefit we may give that country might easily be squandered. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has stated that the Chinese Republic are enthusiastic over this Bill. But I do not think he mentioned the amount we were actually giving in the rebate to the new Sinking Fund. I find, on looking at the figures, that in 1914 we placed £571,000 in the Sinking Fund; in 1915, £332,000; in 1916, £388,000; in 1917, £407,000; and in 1918, £378,000. I really think that before this Bill is passed we should consider our position. Only recently we passed resolutions giving Kenya and the Dominions interest on various loans. We really cannot afford to give these amounts away. I should be far more in favour of giving up the amounts to our Dominions than handing over this sum to China. I noticed in last Saturday's "Times," in a description of the Chinese Republic, that a hope was expressed that the money which was going to be given up by the British would be devoted to the development of Chinese railways. Surely if we are going to give up any amount, we might well follow the example of France. I understood the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to say that France was going to put the money into a bank. Why should we not do that, and thereby encourage our commerce? It would help the hon. Member for Putney to develop trade between this country and China. Although I am anxious to spend as mulch as we can afford on Education, I do urge the Government to carefully consider the question of how this money to be given up to China ought to be used, especially in the chaotic position of that Republic.

12 M.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I rise to support the Amendment, and I do so because we have had very little in-
formation vouchsafed us by the Under-Secretary on one or two very vital points. The hon. Gentleman, for instance, did not give us any idea as to the actual amount we were sacrificing—the sum which the taxpayers of this country were to be called upon to pay for education in China. The principal of the indemnity has been given at £7,500,000 altogether. Since then it has been stated that the German and Austrian shares have lapsed. What is meant by that? Have the amounts lapsed back to the Chinese Government, or are they to be applied for the benefit of the creditors of these two countries in settlement of long overdue War indemnities? In any case it seems we are making a considerable sacrifice. The United States of America have made a clean sweep of the whole thing and handed it over to China, but the United States are in a very much better position for making a sacrifice of that kind than we are. To begin with, they have £45,000,000 a year of our money to pay with, money which we had to borrow to finance our Allies during the War, and upon which our Allies are not hitherto paying us any interest, and, therefore, we are not in the same fortunate position as the United States of America. What are the French doing? They' are reconstructing this French bank in China, and, according to the Under-Secretary, they are instituting schools in France, I understood, for the education of Chinese who are, already, or who may be hereafter, in France. As far as I can make out, we are to institute schools in China, which is a totally different state of affairs, and it seems to me that we can scarcely afford to do it.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I very much hope that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel) and his colleagues will not press this Amendment to a division. I recognise that there is a just grievance in the waiter of British trade marks in China, a grievance which I hope will -be remedied by the, Chinese Government, but it would take all the grace and all the value out of the action which our Government are now proposing if we made it a matter of bargaining. If we take a long view of this question, although it seems a large expenditure, I believe it will have the most beneficial effects in promoting good relations between this country and China, and
ultimately, no doubt, in increasing very considerably British trade as well as British prestige. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) referred to the question of the way in which the French have decided to spend their share, and he asked why we should not spend ours on a British bank. Happily, we have not the same reason for doing so. The position was that the Banque Industrielle de Chine had failed in very lamentable circumstances, and hundreds and thousands of Chinese who had trusted the good name of France were in danger of losing their investments. The French Government very properly felt that they must redeem the honour of the French name, and so they propose to use part of the indemnity to float again the Banque Industrielle de Chine. Happily, we have no need to come to the aid of a British bank in China in similar circumstances, but we can follow the example that the United States of America have been carrying out. For years they have had a series of Chinese students attending their universities out of bursaries provided by the indemnity. These students have gone back to China enthusiastic for America, keen on preserving their American friendships, and they have taken their technical knowledge from America and, of course, promoted trade between America and China. If the Government carry this Bill, I have no doubt that one consequence will be that a considerable number of Chinese students will come specially to study technical subjects in our technical colleges and in our universities, and they will go back to China with special relationships with this country, accustomed to the technical processes which they will have learned here, and the result will be an increase of good will and of trade between the two countries. It will ultimately be to the material benefit of this country, but I do not plead for the Bill simply on that ground.
There is a wider and a deeper issue, and that is the whole relationship of the two countries. This indemnity rankles—and we can understand it—in the minds of thoughtful people in China. They have seen America not only spend the money on scholarships but finally surrender altogether her claim on the indemnity, they have seen even Bolshevist Russia make a surrender to them, they have seen France
take action, and surely we are not going to fall behind. We, too, want to show ourselves the friends of China, and I appeal to the Government that, in forming this Committee, they should take some steps to associate Chinese opinion with the decision, that they should definitely make it part of the duty of the Committee to consult, with the best Chinese opinion as to the way in which this money should be spent. The object of the Bill is that it should be spent for the mutual advantage of China and Great Britain, and that object cannot be achieved if we simply force British ideas of education upon China and do not consult their best opinion and take advantage of it. I, therefore, make an earnest plea that the Government should associate Chinese opinion with this decision in some way, either in the formation or in the work of this Committee. I very much hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I rise to support the Amendment, of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel). The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. E Harvey) said that fortunately we had riot to support any bank in China such as France had to do, but we have a much bigger thing to support, and that is the manufactures of this country. In China our trade marks and patents are at present of no value. Our manufacturers to a very great extent do their business in the East, in China and Japan, by their name and reputation, by their trade marks and patents, and by the quality of the goods they supply. If these goods are imitated by Chinese manufacturers, it will do our manufacturers in this country a great deal of harm, and a lasting harm, and, while I have every sympathy with the education of the Chinese, I have a still greater sympathy for the unemployed workmen of this country. If this country is going to lose her foreign trade, her trade with China, it will throw even more skilled workmen out of work in this country. I think it is time that this country made a business gesture to the Chinese, and asked for a small quid pro quo, if this Bill is passed, that. British trade marks and patents should be considered and respected in China.

Major MOULTON: I do not think the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affiairs has made out such a case as would
justify us in giving the very large sum needed for carrying out the objects of this Bill, and I personally can think of a great many better things to which this sum could be applied. It seems to me that all the things which my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. E. Harvey) mentioned are almost entirely in favour of China, and I cannot see where the mutual advantage of which we have heard comes in at all. I could understand it if some of these schemes provided for the education of our commercial travellers in Chinese, but it seems to me that we are asked to carry our sacrifice to too high a point. I really do not see why we should give up this sum in the way suggested. As to the United States they have got plenty of money and may be perfectly justified in what they are doing; we have not got the money. Personally, I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Bill if no better reason than has been given can be put forward for supporting it.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Those who know me know that I am the last man in the world to boggle at any generous or gracious action on the part of the Government towards a friendly Power. But there is a wider and deeper issue in this matter then has yet been put forward, and it is this: We ought to bring home to the Chinese, who have always had the reputation of being an extremely honourable people that we consider their action in the matter of trade marks dishonourable and wrong. If we can bring it home to them that we look upon this thing in a bad light, and that we shall require it to be put right, I see no reason why we should not pass this Bill. I am very much astonished to see the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade sitting and saying no word on this matter. The second hon. Gentleman represents a Sheffield constituency. I do not; but I know something—perhaps a great deal—of what is going on through my connection with the Associated Chambers of Commerce: and something should be said.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has told us in a light sort of way that the Government are giving this money for education, 400,000 for about 20 years. Does the
House realise that? It is a very large sum. As the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, we do not know—for we have not been told—how the fund that is to be created is to be spent—whether on the education of the Chinese in China, or the education of young Chinese gentlemen in England.
There is still another wider and deeper issue. That is, that quite recently the Chinese Government borrowed money from this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] I am not quite sure; but since the great Wa[...] I did not know this Bill was coming on, and, therefore, I did not prepare myself specially. But I do know that the Chinese borrowed money from England—borrowed the savings of the British people on an Eight per cent. loan. I believe the whole of the interest on that loan is in default! Why we should betray such magnanimity as to pay this money over to the Chinese under these circumstances, and so relieve the Chinese, while for some years the Chinese Government have failed to meet their obligations to our lenders, I do not know. I do not object to the people in this country who have money investing it in foreign countries we are told that it is a good thing, and for the reason—although I do not agree in toto with it—that such loans go out of this country in the form of goods, and, therefore—if so—it must help the general body of our workpeople. I am not going to allow this Bill to go through without protest, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) will follow up his protest I will tell with him against the Bill.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I think there is very doubtful wisdom in pushing this Bill through the House of Commons at the present time when these questions remain to be dealt with by the Chinese Government and our Government. If this Bill is kept back for a short time, there should be no obstacle placed in the way of carrying on those negotiations, not only in a firm but in a friendly way. I appeal to the Government not to press for the Second Reading and that they should try to get a little further on this question of the trade marks and designs in China. They should tell us a little more about it and say that it will have further consideration. If the Government will give us dome reason to hope that they are not only in earnest but have some chance of success, then we will do all we can to help
this Measure through. If we are to use this money to teach the Chinese, let us remember that one of the most important lessons we have to teach them is to realise British standards of honesty. I agree that there are no more honest people in the world than the Chinese according to their own particular standard. [Laughter.] Hon. Members who laugh apparently do not realise the extraordinary difference there is between the Chinese system of civilisation and our own. The Chinese standard of honour is high, as is proved by the life assurance companies who are able to carry on business successfully on the word of a Chinaman, but hon. Members know that there are other ways in which you cannot rely upon what we should call the honesty of Chinamen in the same way as we can rely upon Englishmen, and that is proved by the collection of Customs and Taxes in China.
I want to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that one thing we want to try to teach the Chinaman is to understand our ideas of honesty, which extend somewhat beyond present Chinese ideas, and if we are to teach them that lesson, one of the best ways of doing it would be to teach them when they enter into obligations to pay interest on borrowed money it should be paid. A very useful method of making use of some of this money would be to ensure the payment of the interest which is in default on those bonds or notes, which are held by all sorts of members of the public in this country, and which have been in default for some time past. To return to the original point on which the opposition to this Bill was based, I do earnestly appeal to the Government to keep back the Second Reading of the Bill until they can tell us a little more of the progress they have made in dealing with the scandalous position of affairs in regard to trade marks and designs.

Mr. PONSONBY: I have listened very carefully to all the speeches that have been made on this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) suggested that the Committee should be made into a statutory Committee, but that is not provided for in the Bill, and I am afraid it is too late to entertain that suggestion now. The Committee will be in the nature of an advisory Committee—

Sir S. HOARE: Is there any reason why the Government should not propose an Amendment in Committee making the Committee a Statutory Committee? Will they do that?

Mr. PONSONBY: There is no reason why that should slot be done, and the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion will be borne in mind when we reach that stage. But I would point out to the right, hon. Gentleman that Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill makes this provision:
The said Secretary of State shall cause to be prepared…in respect of each financial year an account showing the receipts and expenditure M that year in respect of the China Indemnity Fund, and the said account shall be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and shall, together with his report thereon, be laid before the House of Commons.
Full Parliamentary control, therefore, will be kept over this money,

Mr. HERBERT: After it is done.

Mr. PONSONBY: I may say that this Bill was drafted by our predecessors, and yet the greater part of the opposition to it comes from hon. Members opposite. I have given very careful attention to their arguments, and especially to those of the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill. The argument is that this indemnity should be used as a weapon. One hon. Member said we must get a quid pro quo—we must make a bargain, we must insist on getting something out of this. Speaking for myself, I must say I think it is rather refreshing to be able to deal with foreign countries not always on the ground of commerce or of bargaining, but on the basis of education and mutual benefit, and I think we ought not to lose sight of this, which, I admit, is, perhaps, rather a new departure. Hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill have suggested a different object to which the money might be devoted. Some have said that it should be used to pay bonds that are in default—

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I must really protest against that. I did not say that it should be used for that purpose. What I said was that, if we are going to be magnanimous towards the Chinese, then, before we give this Bill a Second Reading—which we are quite willing to do—we should at any rate say to them, "Mark you well, the Chinese Government must
make up its mind that at least it will do the honest thing by us," although we make no bargain as to the transfer of the money.

Mr. PONSONBY: I was not referring to the hon. Member, but to some others who made various suggestions as to the constitution of a bank, or, as I have said, the payment of bonds in default, or bargaining with the Chinese in order that they may come to terms on the question of trade marks. There are many outstanding questions with every country, and especially with China, and if we are going to withhold payment of this indemnity for the purpose designed by the Government until all outstanding questions with China have been settled, I am afraid it would be deferred for very many years to come. We do not intend to use it as a weapon or lever, as part of a bargain. We intend it to be a remission for the mutual benefit of both countries. An hon. Member below the Gangway made a suggestion with regard to commercial travellers in China, and that is a kind of suggestion which will be brought. before the Committee, and will probably meet- with their approval, because, as the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) reminded us, the Chinese have a great deal to learn from us, and at the same time there are many ways in which we can learn from them. We must not forget that the Chinese were the inventors of printing centuries before ourselves, and I think it was they who invented the mariner's compass. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel L. Ward) asked what was the position of Germany and Austria when war was declared between those countries and China? The position was that the payments ceased and the money went back to the Chinese Exchequer. The hon. and gallant Member also suggested that the money was to be used for educating Chinese in France, but that is not so; it is to be used for purposes of culture in China. An hon. Member below the Gangway proposed that we should consult with the Chinese, but perhaps he did not hear me say, in my opening remarks, that we propose to have a Chinese representative on the Committee. I hope it will be possible to announce the names of the Committee in the near future. I hope very much that
the Amendment will not be pressed, because I think that fundamentally the House is agreed that this is devoting the money to a good purpose. We are carrying on what the last Government intended to do, and we are doing it in the confident belief that it will be beneficial both to China and to ourselves

Sir F. WISE: Would it be used for railway building, as mentioned in the Parliament of the Chinese Republic only on Saturday last?

Mr. PONSONBY: No, Sir.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: This Bill exhibits the very peculiar phenomenon of a Bill drafted, apparently, by the Conservative party, to which the opposition, with one exception so far, has come from the benches opposite,. At the same time I can well understand the rather natural reluctance of the Under-Secretary to push a Measure of the party opposite, and he has put forward an extraordinarily weak case so far as the Bill itself is concerned. Most hon. Members will be in agreement with the general principle of the Bill, but with the Bill itself as drafted I can hardly conceive any hon. Member who has read it being in agreement at all. I listened with interest and acquiescence to the, speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), of which the only portion that I regretted was that in which he urged the acceptance of the Second Reading of the Bill. I fully agree with him that the money which is to be spent on these objects should be put in a schedule with the objects on which it is to be spent. This is a very large sum indeed. Hon. Members may take little note of £400,000, being accustomed to swelling figures in these days. If it were applied to some novel form of education in this country it would be the subject of considerable criticism. I cannot think that the allocation of revenue justly due to His Majesty's Treasury to indeterminate and indiscriminating education of Chinese subjects, without proper revision and examination by this House, ought to be lightly consented to at this hour of the morning. I do suggest that the Under-Secretary should accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chelsea that there should be a statutory committee. The Under-Secretary quoted a Sub-section of
the Bill regarding the report of the Auditor-General. The fact that that report would be laid before the House of Commons meets none of the objections to the expenditure. The report will show only how the money has been expended. There will be no control because the money will have been spent at the sole discretion of the Secretary of State. There should be in the Bill a schedule showing on what schemes this money is to he expended. It is very plausible to say there is an advisory committee, with a Chinese member to advise the Secretary of State. But more than that is needed, for the sum is large.
Although some hon. Members may have a perfect trust in the Secretary of State and the Committee, cases are known in which expenditure has been incurred by Secretaries of State, and even by committees, which has not met with the approval of the House of Commons or the country. The Under-Secretary should accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Chelsea or, alternatively, he should withdraw the Bill and postpone it. This is a very considerable matter which, if it had not concerned China, would perhaps not meet with such ready acquiescence as it does. If we were asked to expend £400,000 on a scheme in this country, of which nobody knew the details, there would be a full dress Debate; alternative suggestions, hundreds of Amendments and close financial criticism. Bat we are asked to pass this after an hour's discussion and to allocate this to objects of which we are in perfect ignorance. The money belongs to the Treasury, and, so far as it does, it belongs to this country. Therefore the House should not give a Second Reading to the Bill without further disclosure, by the Under-Secretary of State, of the objects on which this money is to be spent.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move. "That the Debate be now adjourned."

I listened very carefully to the statement made in reply to the Debate, and I did not notice one word in that reply which dealt with the criticism made on this side of the House or on the opposite side of the House below the Gangway. In particular, I noticed there was not one word in reply to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel), in whose name the Amendment, stands. I think it would be in harmony with the feelings of the majority of the Members of the House if the Under-Secretary would accept a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate in order that the Government may have an opportunity of modifying the Bill in such a manner that it will give no offence to our friends in China and receive universal acceptance in this House.

Mr. REMER: I beg to second the Motion.
I am not satisfied with the speech which has just been made by the Under-Secretary. He never gave one single. reply to the very careful figures given during the Debate for this reason—he was utterly unprepared to deal with the Bill when he came here to-night. I think it is an absolute disgrace. I second the Motion in order that the Under-Secretary may become more fully acquainted with the subject.

Mr. PONSONBY: I hope hon. Members will not press this Motion. I think they should be prepared to accept a division on the Bill itself. It is riot quite fair to say I gave no information. I dealt with the points raised by the hon. Members opposite. At any rate, I think it would be more satisfactory for the House to go to a division, and if they want to throw out the Bill—[Interruption.] This Bill was drafted and prepared by the late Government.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 115.

Division No. 95.]
AYES.
[12.40 a.m.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Cope, Major William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Becker, Harry
Dixey, A. C.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Blundell, F. N.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brass, Captain W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)


Brunner, Sir J.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Kay, Sir R. Newbald


Bullock, Captain M.
Gorman, William
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Greene, W. P. Crawford
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


McLean, Major A.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wheler, Lleut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Willison, H.


Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wise, Sir Fredric


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Phillpson, Mabel
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)



Pringle, W. M. R.
Spero, Dr. G. E.
TELLERS FOB THE AYES.—


Raine, W.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Mr. Ballour and Mr. Remer.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)



NOES.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex, Enfield)
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. G.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hindle, F.
Scurr, John


Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillebro')
Hoffman, P. C.
Sherwood, George Henry


Amman, Charles George
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Smith, T. (Pontetract)


Barclay, R. Noton
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Black, J. W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Bonwick, A.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Broad, F. A.
Kirkwood, D.
Spence, R.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Lansbury, George
Spoor, B. G.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Buckle, J.
Leach, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charteton, H. C.
Lessing, E.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Church, Major A. G.
Loverseed, J. F.
Sullivan, J.


Clarke, A.
Lunn, William
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Cluse, W. S.
McEntee, V. L.
Thornton, Maxwell B.


Compton, Joseph
Maden, H.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dickson, T.
March, S.
Toole, J.


Dodds, S. R.
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Tout, W. J.


Dukes, C.
Maxton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dunnico, H.
Middleton, G.
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Robert
Warne, G. H.


Egan, W. H.
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, w. M. (Dunfermllne)


Falconer, J.
Owen, Major G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Finney, V. H.
Paling, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fletcher, Lieut.-Commander R. T. H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Weir, L. M.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Phillipps, Vivian
White, H. G. (BIrkenhead, E.)


Gosling, Harry
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Richards, R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennlngton)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)



Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Haycock, A. W.
Romeril, H. G.
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Royce, William Stapleton
Kennedy.


Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Royle, C.

Question put "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 56.

Division No. 96.]
AYES.
[12.46 a.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Egan, W. H.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Elliot, Walter E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Falconer, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Finney, V. H.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E)


Ammon, Charles George
Fletcher, Lieut-Commander R. T. H.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald


Aske, Sir Robert William
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Kirkwood, D.


Barclay, R. Noton
Gibbins, Joseph
Lansbury, George


Black, J. W.
Gillett, George M.
Lawson, John James.


Bonwick, A.
Gorman, William
Leach, W.


Broad, F. A.
Gosling, Harry
Lessing, E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Loverseed, J. F.


Buckle, J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William


Charleton, H. C.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
McEntee, V. L.


Church, Major A. G.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Maden, H.


Clarke, A.
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
March, S.


Cluse, W. S.
Haycock, A. W.
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Compton, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Maxton, James


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Middleton, G.


Dickson, T.
Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex,Enfield)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Dodds, S. R.
Hindle, F.
Murray, Robert


Dukes, C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Oliver, George Harold


Dunnico, H.
Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston)
Owen, Major G.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hoffman, P. C.
Paling, W.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Phillipps, Vivian
Snell, Harry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Ponsonby, Arthur
Spence, R.
Weir, L. M.


Potts, John S.
Spoor, B. G.
Welsh, J. C.


Richards, R.
Stephen, Campbell
West wood J.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
White, H. G. (Blrkenhead, E.)


Ritson, J.
Sturrock, J. Leng
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Sullivan, J.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Romeril, H. G.
Thornton, Maxwell R.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington)


Royce, William Stapleton
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Royle, C.
Tools, J.
Windsor, Walter


Scurr, John
Tout, W. J.



Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sherwood, George Henry
Variey, Frank B.
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Kennedy.


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Warne, G. H.



NOES.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rounded, Colonel R. F.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.


Becker, Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brass, Captain W.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Brunner, Sir J.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Bullock, Captain M.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingstonon-Hull)


Cope, Major William
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Willison, H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Dixey, A. C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Edmondson, Major A. J
Philipson, Mabel



Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Pringle, W. M. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Raine, W.
Mr. Samuel Samuel and Mr. Balfour.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Remer, J. R.



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS) BILL [Lords],

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do not think it will be necessary to do more than to give s, very brief explanation of what the Clauses in this Bill will do. In the first place, it is necessary to say that this Bill is to ratify three separate Conventions dealing with the conditions of employment in the Mercantile Marine. One was passed in 1920 and the other two in 1921. The details of the Conventions are set out in the Schedule. Clause I of the Bill provides for an Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to provide better conditions with regard to seamen who lose their ships. Under the present law a seaman
who loses his ship is not able to claim any wage for the time the ship is lost. Under this Convention provision is made for the payment, not exceeding two months, of wages to the seaman if he loses his ship and has to get back home again. But there is a safeguard, in that provision is made in the Bill that if the seaman become actually employed again within the period of two months, then he is not entitled to draw the indemnity, and vice versa, the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill provides that he cannot draw unemployment insurance during the time that he is eligible to receive the unemployment indemnity.
I need only say one further thing on that Clause and that is that since the Bill, which has passed another place, left that other place, the fishing industry has raised the question with regard to the exclusion under the Clause of share-fishing. That is a matter that is tinder active consideration by the Mercantile Marino Department and it can be dealt with in Committee.
Clause 2 provides for the protection of young persons in regard to employment as firemen and trimmers. No one who
knows anything about the conditions of work in the stoke-hold of a ship will think that this is a condition that should be allowed except under exceptional circumstances. If this Bill be passed it will not be possible to employ as firemen and trimmers young persons under the ago of 18. A point has also been made from the fishing industry with regard to this Clause asking for certain exception in regard to fishing vessels. In this connection an Amendment may be proposed on that point in Committee and can be discussed and dealt with then.
The third Clause provides that in future young persons cannot be employed upon ships unless they have been through a medical examination. That, again, is a point which I am sure will appeal to all those who are familiar with the working of the Mercantile Marine. It is to prevent young persons from going to sea who are incapable of standing the hardships of sea-going life.
The other three Clauses are minor clauses. One provides for penalties in case of default. Clause 5 includes any British fishing-boat entered in the fishing-boat register. Clause 6 gives a definition with regard to Orders in Council and what may not be done by Orders in Council. This is a Bill which is going to mark a definite step forward for British seamen and I ask the House to give us the Bill straightaway.

1.0 A.M.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I should like to ask how many nations have introduced or are introducing legislation to ratify this Convention? Although those nations are parties to the Convention, a certain number will not pass that legislation, and some more of them that pass the legislation will not take steps to enforce it. That is the experience we have had hitherto with regard to these International Labour Conventions, and it throws upon the nation which does take the trouble to enforce these Conventions a very serious burden. I have had come connection with the shipping trade, and I know, perhaps as well as the hon. Member who introduced this Measure, what the. conditions of life are, and the hardships in the stokehold. At the same time, one must consider that one is faced with increasing competition from foreign countries if those
foreign countries do not ratify a Convention such as this. It is placing the traders of this country in an unfair and a very difficult position. Now with regard to the first Clause—that is with regard to seamen who lose their ships—as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, it falls to the owner to repatriate these men—to bring them back to the port where they signed on. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that they are to be paid for two months from the time of losing their ship, or from the time of their arriving at the port where they originally signed on? It does make a considerable difference, and the hon. Gentleman's speech on the subject was rather ambiguous and indefinite. I have a special appeal to make with regard to the fishing industry, and I do hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to see his way to exclude from the provisions of this Bill the fishing industry so far as the employment of persons under 18 is concerned. I have no grounds for claiming that exception. The conditions of service on fishing vessels are at least as onerous, perhaps worse, than on board liners and well-found tramp steamers. While the shipping industry is in a position to be able to make these concessions, the fishing industry, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a great. many people qualified to judge, cannot afford to do so. By insisting upon this provision you are throwing upon the fishing industry a burden the industry cannot stand. Things in the fishing trade are very bad. It is faced with foreign competition in the keenest possible form. We have to face competition from the Danes, the Dutchmen, the Germans, and, perhaps worst of all, from the Icelandic trawlers.
During the past 12 months these foreign trawlers have landed 200,000 tons of fish. That has tended to keep down the prices of fish to all classes of consumers in this country, but, unfortunately, during that time there have been about 100 British trawlers laid up. If these trawlers had been working at their full capacity they would have brought almost exactly the same amount of fish as that which was dumped by foreign trawlers. Hon. Members may say, "Why is it that the British trawler cannot successfully compete with these foreign trawlers, and why do foreign trawlers dump their fish in British ports?" They do it first of all
because many of these foreign trawlers receive subsidies in some form or another. The Danes give a very considerable cash subsidy every year; the Dutchmen have some curious arrangement whereby the vessels which land fish in English ports receive a quid pro quo as regards the increased cost of transit over what it would be if they landed their fish in a Dutch port. The German and Icelandic trawlers have an extraordinary low rate of wages. As far as the Icelandic boats are concerned, they ship their hands from the Faroe Islands. They are splendid seamen, and they ask for a monthly wage which English fishermen and seamen, rightly, would not look at. As far as German competition is concerned, the great advantage has been the extraordinary fluctuation in the exchange. What at present is the actual wage in English money I cannot say, but nine months or a year ago it was approximately equivalent to £1 a month, whereas £8 to £10 per month were being paid by English owners. The foreign boats have also the advantage that they can go and fish in the Moray Firth, and the reason why they can do so is that the Order issued some time ago by the Board of Scottish Fisheries has closed it to all British trawlers, but not to foreign trawlers Foreign trawlers can fish in the Moray Firth and dump their cargoes in Aberdeen, or some other port, and they have a great advantage as compared with the British boats which have to fish in non-territorial waters, and possibly go as far as Iceland to catch fish. By including the fishing industry in this Bill you are throwing on the industry a burden which it cannot bear.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I regard this Bill as a very tardy and half-hearted step towards justice for a class of men denied justice for many long years. With regard to Clause 1, I am amazed that at this time of day an hon. Member should even appear to object. When a man suffers shipwreck he gets no wages now. His contract is terminated. Added to that, he has lost his kit and he has risked his life. He is a British seaman and a British owner casts him off and gives him nothing. That position is defended from the benches opposite. An industry which cannot afford such a man food, shelter and a subsistence allowance is an industry
that requires very rapid overhauling. We know from the profit of some of the large trawling firms that they can afford it. The figures have been repeatedly given in the columns of the Press when these trawler firms are floating themselves as limited liability companies. They have been able to prove that they are making profits when they are soliciting capital. I agree that they are subject to fluctuations.
In the last two years they have been suffering very considerably. The line fishermen have also been suffering and so have land trades. No other industry would throw off its workmen, or attempt to justify throwing them off, when they had lost their all. Shipwrecked seamen get nothing. It is the purpose of Clause I to see that that is stopped. If my hon. Friend is in agreement that it should be stopped, why does he oppose the Bill.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: He is not opposing the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg the hon. Member's pardon if I have misapprehended him. If he has been an active and enthusiastic supporter of the Bill, I have misjudged him. Clause 2, which refers to-young persons, is miserably insufficient. This only safeguards young persons of 18 and under, but what about young persons of 19? The hon. Gentleman who moved this Bill has been inquiring into the matter recently. There are ships plying in home waters which are not subject to foreign competition at all. The ships belong to wealthy concerns such as railway companies, the L.N.E.R. for one and the L.M.S. for another. They are passenger ships and employ these people for 90 hours a week not counting their Sunday labour. They do not get overtime.

Mr. S. SAMUEL: No, no. I am on the. Executive Council of the Shipping Federation and that is why I know.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If the passenger steamers on the Clyde are being paid overtime, then there is somebody intercepting it.

Mr. S. SAMUEL: I am on the Maritime. Board also.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. Gentleman who represents the Government has been making inquiries into the allegations made by Members—amongst them myself—within the last two months. He will
say what the facts are. I repeat that the L.N.E.R. issued time tables this month which show that one steamer at any rate runs 90 hours and that they employ men working as stokers, etc. What protection does this Bill give to the men? None whatever. I submit to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that, if he wants to employ engineers, there are thousands of them idle, skilled men, and he could do something to relieve unemployment. I should be greatly delighted to see now the concern about unemployment which hon. Members opposite showed a fortnight ago, when the vote for the salary of the Minister of Labour was under discussion. Here is their chance. Let them insist upon a 48 hour week for the engineers on board the boats in home waters and they can absorb 15,000 engineers who are at present unemployed. Here is a chance for the hon. Gentleman who sits on the Maritime Board. There is certainly no dividend in that, but the point is that these passenger steamers are owned by corporations, not by poor trawling concerns or a family of net fishermen. They are owned by great railway companies, and I say it is a scandal that men should be working on these boats 90 hours a week. I think the Bill is miserably insufficient if it does not take this matter up. I trust the hon. Gentleman who replies will say whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Clause to see that this is remedied. It is a positive danger to the Eves of passengers and the men who are working on these boats. I hope he will observe at the same time that there is a considerable number of skilled engineers who could be given honest and honourable work. By this means he would take away the grievance which was manifested on the opposite benches when the vote for the Labour Minister's salary was before the House.

Mr. WARDLAW MILNE: I only want to ask the hon. Member two questions. He referred to the period of two months in the Bill, and it would be interesting to us to be told why they have particularly fixed on two months as the period for which wages must be paid. I should have thought the fixed period was the time required for the seaman who lost his ship was between the loss of the ship and the time he returns to land. The
other question is that of the application of this Bill to the fishing industry. The hon. Member told us it would be left to the Committee stage. Am I to understand that the Government have an open mind on the question whether the Bill should be applied to the fishing industry or not?

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman opposite seriously misunderstood the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West. Hull (Lieut.-Colonel L. Ward). He uttered no objection to Clause 1 of this Bill. I do not think any Member on this side of the House is opposed to the Bill. Every hon. Member on this side of the House would say it is a right and proper thing that the seamen should be paid during the time it takes him to reach his home. What my hon. and gallant Friend did say was that it is unfair to have this provision unless we at the same time ensure that the other people who are in direct competition with our fishing fleet should have to bear a like burden with our trawler owners. I think that was a correct interpretation of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend.
I notice in the Schedule of this Bill one or two words which repeatedly occur. One term is "the fin International Labour Organisation," and the other term is "the International Labour Office." I can discover nowhere, either in the Bill or in the Schedule, any definition of the meaning of these terms. At the same time these words may be open to grave abuse in the future. As far as I know, any organisation may be known as the International Labour Organisation. I may be wrong, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to assure us that these words have a specific meaning. Another word occurs in Clause 6 of the Bill. It says that by Order in Council the Dominion it refers to in the second Schedule of the Bill cannot be brought into the scope of the Order in Council Therefore, I assume any British shipowner, by registering in any Dominion such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, New Zealand, can escape the obligation under this Bill I should like to be quite sure that whatever applies to this country will apply to our Dominions. I think, on the whole, it is unwise to extend this class of legislation very far. It should be kept within
limited scope, and we should not give ratification of these Treaties unless we know other countries are doing likewise. I should like to repeat the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull who asked how many other countries are holding them-selves bound to ratify these conventions in the way we are doing? If it is discovered that only a minority is ratifying this Convention, some protection should be inserted to the effect that unless a. certain proportion of tile countries ratify the Treaty it should not come into operation.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. T. Shaw): I have risen to refer to two specific points. The first point of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel Ward), was that the fishing industry in particular in this country was handicapped as against other countries. Holland and Germany have been specifically mentioned because of the advantage those countries had in the rate of exchange.

Lieut. - Colonel WARD: No, not Holland; Germany only.

Mr. SHAW: The statement was general, but I take that for Germany. As a matter of fact the exchange is a disadvantage to Germany. Everyone who knows anything about International exchange knows that for the last nine months German exchange has been at a premium in comparison to our own.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I said eight, eight or nine months ago. I was unable to say what effect the present condition had on the German wages, but nine or ten months ago—

Mr. SHAW: This Bill is before the House to-night; not nine or ten months ago, and I repeat that German exchange is at a premium, and the disadvantage is with the Germans and not with us. That is point cumber one. Point number two is that we should wait until other countries have ratified, or we should know in advance what countries were going to ratify. That is what is said by every body of employers in every country in Europe. The same game is played the same story is told the same Parliamentary action is taken in every country in Europe, and all the fine talk
when the Treaty of Versailles was signed, all the fine promises made in the Labour Charter, all the statements made from platforms that got tremendous majorities for the Coalition Government to which the hon. Gentleman belonged.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I did not belong to the Coalition Government. I fought a Coalition candidate and beat him.

Mr. SHAW: I still repeat that when the Treaty of Versailles was signed the hon. and gallant Gentleman's party belonged to the Coalition Government and were responsible more than any other party for the Treaty and for the Labour Charter therein contained. Now that Labour Charter to which our signature is affixed, to which we are more solemnly bound than any other nation in Europe—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because we were principally responsible for its inclusion in the Treaty of Versailles. That is why, and we have been the country which has certainly not shown an example to others. Take this question of shipping. We are the first country in the world in shipping and yet we have to wait before we keep our word to know whether Holland or Germany will keep its word. In Holland and in Germany the shipowners are telling the people exactly the same story, and so long as the working people can be bluffed by that story then there will never be a Convention ratified. But the instant a nation is big, strong and generous enough to keep its word then we can expect other people to keep their word. It is our duty to do so because we are the most highly developed industrial nation and we, above all other nations, ought to be the first to keep to our bond and to show an example to others. As a matter of fact we have done exactly the opposite. This is not the only Treaty. I am not going to refer to others, but I shall have the opportunity before very long to deal with another Convention to which we solemnly affixed our signature. I cannot refer to that now. I want to say quite definitely that the, two points the hon. and gallant. Gentleman made about the exchange and the necessity for getting to know what other countries were doing both fall to the ground in face of the facts. There is no advantage to Germany from the point of view of the exchange. We have a solemn duty to show an example to other nations by ratifying the Conventions solemnly
entered into under part of the Treaty of Versailles for which we were principally responsible.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I take it that other nations are not ratifying it.

Mr. PRINGLE: It is quite true that this is a Bill for ratifying the International Labour Conventions. Everybody agrees with the provisions which are inserted in this Bill. They were admirable provisions on their merits, apart altogether from the question whether the other countries adopt them or not. I should have been inclined to support them, whether there had been a Convention or not. But as this Bill is put forward as a Bill for giving effect to an International Labour Convention surely the House is entitled to know what other countries are doing. It is a matter of information.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: We have been told we are doing nothing.

Mr. PRINGLE: The Minister of Labour has made a very eloquent speech. He is a master of declamation but is economical in facts and on this occasion he followed his usual practice. We are always delighted to listen to him and he certainly helped to raise the temperature at this hour of the morning. When we were asked to deal with a Bill of this kind, which refers to the Conventions in the Preamble and which is set out in the Schedule we are entitled to know whether this is what it purports to be, an international affair or not, or whether the whole of this International Labour Office is turning out to be largely a fraud and a sham. [Interruption.]
I know what I am going to say as soon as the hon. Gentlemen stop talking. An hon. Member addressing this House is entitled to be relieved from constant running conversation which is highly irrelevant.

Mr. SPEAKER rose to put the Question.

Mr. PRINGLE: I had not finished.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was not proceeding.

Mr. PRINGLE: I understood an hon. Member was at least entitled to address the House without being constantly inter-
rupted. I had endeavoured to speak two consecutive sentences and for the space of three minutes I was not allowed to do so without interruption. I think that that is at least carrying the practice somewhat further than the Chair is accustomed to allow. I return to the question I was putting and which I hope the President of the Board of Trade—whom we are told is soon to leave us—will answer. The President of the Board of Trade is, after all, at the head of the Department responsible for this Bill and while the Under-Secretary has spoken, and the Minister of Labour has spoken, I have no doubt the President of the Board of Trade will be able to tell us the facts without declamation. There is a point in regard to the Schedule which illustrates some of the difficulties. It is the reference to the International Labour Organisation and certain other organisations and Conventions which are referred to in the Treaty of Versailles only. As I understand it, these Conventions have no operative effect at all. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will correct me if I am wrong. Is it the case that the Schedules are simply costly printing which will be of no use? I hope the President of the Board of Trade will damn to give us his counsel on the matter.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): I will endeavour to avoid declamation and be brief. May I begin with the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour)? The Dominions he referred to are separately represented in the International Labour Office. They ratified separately, and they pass their own legislation on the subject, and, therefore, and for that. reason, it is specially provided that they shall not, be added to an Order in Council in this country. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) was perfectly right. Conventions which are included in the first Schedule are not part of our legislation. In the second line of the Preamble a definition of the phrase is given, and this is part of the Act—
Whereas at Genoa the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations".
It is that International Labour Organisation to which reference is made in the Schedule. I think the hon. Member for Hampstead need not be apprehensive of any other International Labour Organisa-
tion. It is the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations, of which this country is one of the constituent members.

Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon Gentleman say that affects the Bill in any way?

Mr. WEBB: I am not prepared to say what affects the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel L. Ward) has raised a substantial point with regard to fishing vessels. The application of this new legislation to fishing vessels is now being considered by the Advisory Committee, and it may be dealt with in Committee. I would like to point out that this Bill has been through all its stages in another place, and not until the Bill came down here was any question raised by the fishing industry, so that they are rather late. Their case is being very seriously considered. The Government have an entirely open mind. I think it is the desire that if these fishing vessels go down the men employed on them shall not get their wage, if they do come forward with such a request—

Lieut.-Colonel L. WARD: It is not that so much.

Mr. WEBB: So much! The hon. and gallant Member did say that applied to the fishing vessels.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: It is young persons under 18.

Mr. WEBB: It is not, therefore, Clause 1 on which there is going to be any question in Committee. I make it quite clear that there can be no exception to Clause 1. I understand no owner of a fishing vessel would ask for exception.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I think not.

Mr. WEBB: The question is whether any protection is required for persons under 18 serving as firemen or trimmers. Whether the stokeholds on fishing vessels are as deleterious as on large ships will be a matter for inquiry.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I said I had no grounds for asking for exclusion. I said the conditions in the stokeholds were as bad, if not worse, than on liners. The only reason I gave was that the industry could not afford the additional burden.

Mr. WEBB: If the conditions are so bad as to call for legislation in the ordinary way, and the conditions of the industry are such that it would not wish that legislation to be applied, that means that these young people are to be subjected to these conditions which are so bad for them simply because—I will not say because the employers should make more profits, but that they should make less loss than they otherwise would. On which leg does the hon. Member stand? If the employment is deleterious, I do not think anyone will want to keep it on. I do not think the owners of trawlers would wish to subject their own people to deleterious conditions and I do not think they will. These Clauses have received the support and consent of the industry generally, and it was only the other day that we were informed there was any objection taken. As a matter of fact, this question is being looked into by the Government, and the Government have an open mind on the subject. If the fishing industry can show That it has a claim not to have the Clause applied, the Government will have an Amendment to that effect put down. But it does not seem as if that were the case. How ever, if they can show a claim, it shall be done.
With regard to the hours of labour, hon. Members on this side of the House urge that the Bill should apply to that matter. It cannot. The Bill is to ratify an international agreement. That is the purpose of the agreement. There is nothing about the hours of labour in the Bill, and therefore we cannot deal with that question in the Bill. I do not say it ought not to be dealt with at some time, but it cannot he done in this Bill. Hon. Members asked why a man who is shipwrecked should have two months' wages. It is not quite correct to say he is to receive two months' wages. He receives two months' wages if he is so long unemployed and it dates from the time his former wages stop. The sufficient answer for the two months' period is that we must fix some maximum period, and this is the maximum to which all the countries in the world have agreed.
One or two Members have asked how many countries have ratified the Convention and passed legislation. Frankly, I do not know. I have not that information here at hand. My information is,
first of all, that these Clauses were accepted by the Governments represented, as well as by the shipowners and labour representatives of all the countries who were represented at Genoa and Geneva. We understand that the Conventions are in course of ratification. They have been ratified by some countries, and in some other countries they are in process of ratification, but I have not an idea in which countries. Still less do I know which country has passed legislation. As a matter of fact, some countries do not need specific legislation, and ratification is sufficient. It is said that in some countries, even if thsy do legislate, they do not always carry out their legislation. I absolutely disbelieve that statement. This country is not by any means universally at the head in such matters. There are countries ahead of us in factory legislation, and there are other points which we are ahead, but we cannot lay unction to ourselves that we are the superior people. Then there is this point: This is a matter in which we have given our word—not merely this present Government, but the last Government and the Government before that, who sent representatives deliberately to vote for this provision. The shipowners also sent representatives to vote for this provision, and surely we must keep our word. We are bound to pass legislation, and therefore I ask the House to give us the Second Reading now and defer the other questions.

Mr. BECKER: The hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) said he passed correspondence with one of the Ministers with regard to the conditions on board trawlers. [HON MEMBERS: "No"] I am sorry if I am wrong. He said he had sent a lot of information to the Ministry on the subject of men working long hours. It occurs to me that if he sent information on that subject about the London and North Eastern Railway ships he might, have had other communications, because he said 18 years was too young all age, and that we ought to consider men in the stokehold of the age of 19. Are the Government in Committee going to increase the age beyond 18? It is quite likely they may take it to 21 or even 30. I think that would be extremely unfair. At 18 years of age one is not too
young to go to the stokehold. I have been in the stokehold at less than 18. I think 18 is quite the right age, though 17 is too young. I want the assurance of the President of the Board of Trade that the Government are not going to increase the age to 19 or 20. It seems an inspired suggestion, and I wish information to be given to us.

Mr. STURROCK: I very much have to regret detaining the House, even for a short time, to place certain matters before it. I do plead with the Government to allow us to go home without advancing this Bill. Seriously, it does appear to be an outrage, no matter how you may look at this Measure, to have the House of Commons considering various matters which affect profoundly the interests not only of shipowners but every man who goes to sea, on a Bill which has been sent down from another place and which appears to me to be the only recommendation the Bill has in the eyes of the Mover. I do sincerely hope it does go to another place. If one looks at the Clauses of the Bill we are considering on Second Reading, I agree that many points can be raised in Committee. But I look back to the bench occupied by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), and I greatly regret his absence, and also the absence of he who was the senior Member for the City of London (Lord Banhury). because I am sure they could have talked until six in the morning on this Measure and kept within your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The Bill deals with points raised in the Labour Charter, which was mainly carried through by an hon. Member of this House who earned the respect of every party in the House. I am sure that when Mr. George Barnes was passing through this great Labour Charter he never conceived the proposals which were then put forward and agreed to, and to be ratified by all the Powers, would be presented to us at this hour of the morning by a Government which professes to act in the interests of those who go down to the sea in ships and do their business in the mighty waters. If any Member of this House has seriously considered the various Clauses which go to make up this Bill, if any Member of this House has attempted to try to define the various legal technicalities which are involved in every Clause and in every Sub-section of
every Clause, when he comes to page three and reads:
There shall be included in every agreement with the crew a list of the young persons who are members of the crew, together with particulars of the dates of their birth"—
I ask the House to consider the state of mind of any member of the crew who is called upon to provide all these details. Yet we are asked to allow the Second Reading of this Measure to-night before we have had time ourselves to consider it. To be asked to swallow the Bill wholesale after midnight.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already said that three times.

Mr. STURROCK: I respectfully beg your pardon. It may have been one of my best points. Clause I says:
A seaman shall not be entitled to receive wages under this Section if the owner shows that the unemployment was, not due to the wreck or lose of the ship. … if the owner shows that the seaman was able to obtain suitable employment on that day.
What does it mean? It means nothing whatsoever. Anyone knowing the conditions of a seaman's life knows very well that it would be impossible for the seaman to contest the point with the shipowner who had all the advantages of wealth and legal help and all the opportunities which go to strengthen his position. I am amazed that this Government of all Governments should bring forward a Measure containing a point of that kind which would embarrass any Court of Law because of the obvious conflict of evidence. Take the case that happened not so many months ago, the case of the wreck of the "Trevessa." What a conflict of evidence you would have had. Where was the evidence to come from? You only had the two parties in the case, the shipowners and the crew of the vessel. I give this as an example of the sort of thing that would happen. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade tells me that this Bill has been carefully considered in another place, that there is no need to talk about it new. I ask him who in the other place represents those who mainly compose the crews of the vessels who put out to sea throughout the year? Another extraordinary provi-
sion is in Clause 2, and I would like to have some light upon it. It is this:
Where in any port a trimmer or stoker is required for any ship and no person over the age of eighteen years is available to fill the place, a young person over the age of sixteen years may be employed as a trimmer or stoker, but in any such case two young persons over the age of sixteen years shall be employed to do the work which would otherwise have been performed by one person over the age of eighteen years.
This Clause is proposed by a Government that professes to speak in the name of labour—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is repeating himself so much that I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. STURROCK: If I may, with respect, say that I feel very strongly on this matter—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have ordered the hon. Member to resume his seat.

2.0 A.M.

Mr. T. DICKSON: In listening to the objections which have been submitted against this Bill I find it is simply the old objection that one gets to every form of industrial legislation submitted to this House. It is the old cry that no matter what advantages are deemed to be necessary for the welfare of the workers in any particular industry, those advantages must be deferred until some time in the sweet by and by because we shall thereby be hindering our industry or handicapping our industrialists, manu- facturers or shipowners in their competition abroad. That argument was equally legitimate and was used in precisely the same way with regard to every item of industrial and factory legislation which has ever come before this House. Under certain conditions industry has to bear the charges of legislation in this country. In consequence of such a Bill as this certain charges put upon the shipping of this country may not be put upon shipping of other countries, but that is equally true of other things. If one may mention the War Loan charges of this country, they have to be borne by the industry of this country, and we do not appear to have any vehement claim for their reduction or repeal. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) suggested that this Bill ought to be considered upon its merits. Then he proceeded to argue that some other country
might accept or refuse it. I agree that we should consider this Bill upon its merits, but if we are deemed to be the leading nation in industry we should not wait upon some other nation in the world. We should boldly take our own step and pass this charter for the seafaring men of this country.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Burton-upon-Trent, which was presented on the 30th May and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade
under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Walsall, which was presented on the 2nd June and published, be approved."—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

Orders of the Day — COUNTY COUNCILS (EXPENSES) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday Evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nine Minutes after Two o'Clock a.m.